Washington, DC (April 7, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed guidelines, which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded workers.

The NLRB again proposed these rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted after a federal court struck them down in 2012. The court ruled that the Board did not have a quorum necessary to enact the new rules when it tried to do so.

The proposed rules dramatically shorten the time frame individual workers have to gather, evaluate, and share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. Moreover, the rules require job providers to disclose workers’ personal information (including their phone numbers, email addresses, and shift information), thus opening up dissenting or undecided workers to intimidation and harassment.

The new rules would also create a loophole which allows union organizers to claim they have support of 30 percent of employees in the workplace, the minimum number required to initiate an election, despite a dispute regarding the size of the bargaining unit in question. Then, union organizers who fear that they do not have enough support to win an election could withdraw their request for an election and use the newly-gotten personal information in later attempts to unionize the workers.

Foundation staff attorneys argue in the formal comments that this “ambush” election process would encourage the forced unionization of workers who might otherwise be opposed to unionization, and that the rule requiring job providers to hand over the employees’ personal information to union bosses violates workers’ privacy.

“The NLRB’s proposed rules make union organizing campaigns even more one-sided and stifle the rights of employees who may oppose unionization in their workplace,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This power grab reminds us once again that the Big Labor-dominated NLRB’s enforcement of federal labor law is most often used to empower union officials, not workers, with unique and damaging privileges designed to bolster their power and revenue.”

Foundation staff attorney William Messenger will also speak against the proposed rules at the NLRB’s public meetings on the changes on Friday, April 11.

Volkswagen Workers’ Brief Blasts UAW Bosses’ Desperate and Delusional Attempt to Silence Dissenting Employees

Foundation staff attorneys help employees preserve their decision to reject unionization

Springfield, VA (April 3, 2014) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Volkswagen employees filed a brief defending their right to have a say in the high-profile unionization dispute at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, Tennessee facility.

The brief was filed after the United Auto Worker (UAW) union asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reverse a Regional Director’s ruling allowing the workers to intervene in the union’s challenge to the outcome of the recent unionization election, which the UAW lost.

The brief opposes further delays to the NLRB’s hearing on the union’s challenge, and accuses the UAW of using false evidence to prompt the Board to remove the workers from the process. The brief also calls for a Department of Justice investigation to consider a prosecution of the UAW’s “witness” for filing demonstrably false statements under oath.

Click here to read the full release.

Springfield, VA (April 3, 2014) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Volkswagen employees filed a brief defending their right to have a say in the high-profile unionization dispute at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, Tennessee facility.

The brief was filed after the United Auto Worker (UAW) union asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reverse a Regional Director’s ruling allowing the workers to intervene in the union’s challenge to the outcome of the recent unionization election, which the UAW lost.

The brief opposes further delays to the NLRB’s hearing on the union’s challenge, and accuses the UAW of using false evidence to prompt the Board to remove the workers from the process. The brief also calls for a Department of Justice investigation to consider a prosecution of the UAW’s “witness” for filing demonstrably false statements under oath.

The brief states, “That the UAW resorted to filing a false declaration that could be so easily disproved to attempt to show the existence of a grand and secret conspiracy being waged against it smacks of the desperation and paranoia increasingly gripping the union following its rejection by Volkswagen employees in the election.”

The brief then points out that the UAW’s false accusations against the Foundation are not reason enough to exclude the workers even if the accusations were true. The brief states “The UAW’s case proceeds from the misguided premise that it is objectionable if any entity campaigned or spoke against the union in the election. While this belief may reflect how elections are conducted in Venezuela or North Korea, it does not reflect how elections are conducted in this free nation.”

Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

“The NLRB Regional Director has ruled that the workers are entitled to defend their vote to keep the UAW out of their workplace. The decision over whether or not to unionize is supposed to lie with the workers, which makes the attempt by the UAW to shut them out of this process all the more shameful.

“The UAW’s latest claims are both desperate and delusional. Nothing UAW bosses are claiming changes the fact that VW employees should have the right to defend their vote to keep the UAW out of their workplace. The real question the brief raises is: Why are UAW officials so afraid of workers and their National Right to Work Foundation-provided attorneys being part of this process?”

Wallops Island NASA Employee Files Federal Brief in Union Election Dispute

Government union’s stalling tactics block workers’ representation vote

Washington, DC (April 3, 2014) – A Wallops Island NASA employee filed a federal brief with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) defending his and his coworkers’ request to vote on their union representation for the first time in 40 years.

Ronald Walsh, a 10 year NASA employee, filed the brief yesterday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Forty years ago, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union hierarchy won monopoly bargaining powers in Walsh’s workplace. Since then, five AFGE-affiliated unions have enjoyed monopoly bargaining powers over the workplace without a vote.

Walsh believed that the union in his workplace was out of tune with the majority of his coworkers. So in June, 2013, Walsh circulated a decertification petition at his workplace seeking a vote which would allow the workers to determine if they would like to keep the AFGE Local 1923 union in their workplace.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (April 3, 2014) – A Wallops Island NASA employee filed a federal brief with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) defending his and his coworkers’ request to vote on their union representation for the first time in 40 years.

Ronald Walsh, a 10 year NASA employee, filed the brief yesterday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Forty years ago, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union hierarchy won monopoly bargaining powers in Walsh’s workplace. Since then, five AFGE-affiliated unions have enjoyed monopoly bargaining powers over the workplace without a vote.

Walsh believed that the union in his workplace was out of tune with the majority of his coworkers. So in June, 2013, Walsh circulated a decertification petition at his workplace seeking a vote which would allow the workers to determine if they would like to keep the AFGE Local 1923 union in their workplace. Within a few days, Walsh obtained the required 30 percent of his coworkers’ signatures and filed the petition on June 17, 2013.

An FLRA Regional Director dismissed Walsh’s petition, stating that he could only file it between July 10 and August 26, 2013. However, the FLRA Regional Director allowed the union to wait to object to Walsh’s petition on those grounds until August 27, 2013 – one day after the supposed deadline.

Had the union made its objection within the “window period,” when originally due, Walsh would have been able to timely refile his petition.

In the brief, Walsh points out that the FLRA’s so-called “window period” does not apply to decertification petitions filed by individuals and that any other interpretation of the statute could violate workers’ First Amendment rights.

“No worker should be forced to accept a union’s representation without a say in the matter,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The FLRA should allow these workers a voice to determine for themselves what union ‘represents’ them or if they even want something to do with a union in the first place.”

Federal Court Upholds Michigan’s Right to Work Law

Workers defend free choice for workers against spurious union boss legal challenge

Detroit, MI (March 31, 2014) – Today, a federal court upheld the major provisions of Michigan’s recently-enacted Right to Work law. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in response to the court’s ruling:

“After suffering a major legislative defeat and being rejected by voters when they attempted to entrench forced unionism in the state constitution, Michigan union bosses are seeking to strike down Michigan’s Right to Work law in the courts. In this case, AFL-CIO union lawyers argued that federal law preempts the enforcement of state Right to Work laws in several respects.

“Fortunately, the court dismissed the union lawyers’ challenges to the core provisions of Michigan’s Right to Work law and Michigan workers will continue to have the Right to Work without having to pay dues to an unwanted union.”

Click here to read the full release.

Detroit, MI (March 31, 2014) – Today, a federal court upheld the major provisions of Michigan’s recently-enacted Right to Work law. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in response to the court’s ruling:

“After suffering a major legislative defeat and being rejected by voters when they attempted to entrench forced unionism in the state constitution, Michigan union bosses are seeking to strike down Michigan’s Right to Work law in the courts. In this case, AFL-CIO union lawyers argued that federal law preempts the enforcement of state Right to Work laws in several respects.

“Fortunately, the court dismissed the union lawyers’ challenges to the core provisions of Michigan’s Right to Work law and Michigan workers will continue to have the Right to Work without having to pay dues to an unwanted union.”

With free legal assistance from Foundation staff attorneys, Terry Bowman, Brian Pannebecker, Aaric Lewis, and Robert Harris, filed a brief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the case filed by Michigan State AFL-CIO union officials seeking to overturn the law.

All four workers are or were employed in workplaces where a forced dues contract was in place between their employers and union hierarchies before the Right to Work law was enacted. Consequently, the workers could be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs, despite the fact they do not belong to the union nor sought the union’s so-called “representation.”

In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys pointed out that the 24 state private-sector Right to Work laws are protected under federal labor law and cite various federal and state precedents that support their argument. Despite several prior preemption challenges to other state Right to Work laws, there is not a single case invalidating a Right to Work law.

Michigan’s Right to Work law states that no employee can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment, but forced dues contracts between unions and employers entered into prior to the law’s effective date remain in force throughout the state until they expire.

Springfield, VA (March 31, 2014) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, has just filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in a case involving Pacific Lutheran University and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925. The Foundation’s brief supports Pacific Lutheran’s efforts to resist union encroachment on its religious prerogatives.

Under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), SEIU Local 925 officials are attempting to organize adjunct professors at Pacific Lutheran University. According to Foundation staff attorneys, this violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent, which holds that the Board has no authority over religiously-affiliated schools.

Moreover, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from regulating the religious work of churches. Pacific Lutheran University was established by the Lutheran Evangelical Church in America and continues to operate under the church’s authority. As Foundation attorneys point out in their brief, the university’s educational mission is inextricably linked to the teachings of the Lutheran Church.

Foundation attorneys note that unionization could place the university in direct conflict with the Lutheran Church. If the NLRB recognizes Local 925 as the adjuncts’ exclusive bargaining agent, union officials will be empowered to negotiate over terms and conditions of employment with Pacific Lutheran University. Those negotiations could force university administrators to make concessions that contradict the school’s religious mission, such as expanding access to abortion under the university’s health care plan.

Foundation attorneys also argue that adjunct professors are considered managers under the National Labor Relations Act, rendering them statutorily ineligible for unionization.

“Aided and abetted by a pliant NLRB, Big Labor is taking aim at religiously-affiliated universities,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Of course, the SEIU’s ultimate goal is to force more people to pay union dues, even if it means infringing on the liberty of religious institutions.”

Sanford Nurse Files Federal Charges against Major Healthcare Union and Local Hospital

California union officials stonewall nurse’s attempt to exercise her rights under state’s Right to Work law

Sanford, FL (March 28, 2014) – A Central Florida Regional Hospital nurse has filed federal charges against a major California-based healthcare union and her employer for violating her rights.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Margaret Clark, a registered nurse in critical care at the hospital for 27 years, filed the charges last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

In November, 2013, Clark, who has 39 years of nursing experience, sent a letter to National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union officials and Central Florida Regional Hospital management stating that she was exercising her right under the state’s Right to Work law to refrain from union membership and dues payments.

Click here to read the full release.

Sanford, FL (March 28, 2014) – A Central Florida Regional Hospital nurse has filed federal charges against a major California-based healthcare union and her employer for violating her rights.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Margaret Clark, a registered nurse in critical care at the hospital for 27 years, filed the charges last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

In November, 2013, Clark, who has 39 years of nursing experience, sent a letter to National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union officials and Central Florida Regional Hospital management stating that she was exercising her right under the state’s Right to Work law to refrain from union membership and dues payments. Under Florida’s Right to Work law, union officials must respect nonmember workers’ right to refrain from the payment of any union dues.

NNOC union officials denied Clark’s request to revoke her dues deduction authorization – a form union officials use to automatically withhold union dues from employee paychecks – stating she could do it only during a period of time which is different than the one specified in the authorization. Consequently, the hospital continues to collect full union dues – about $70 a month – from her paychecks at the union’s behest, even though she is no longer a union member.

Clark points out in her charges that the union’s dues deduction authorization form is conditioned on union membership, which means that workers can revoke the card at will once they resign union membership. The charges also challenge the burdensome process workers must complete in order to revoke their dues deduction authorizations.

In Florida and across the country, NNOC union officials and Central Florida Regional Hospital’s parent company, HCA Holdings, have often colluded to force healthcare professionals into union ranks

“NNOC union officials are flaunting their own rules to force this nurse into forced dues payments in violation of Florida’s popular Right to Work law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case is just another in a long list of rights abuses against nurses and other healthcare professionals perpetrated by NNOC and HCA Holdings officials.”

Twenty-four states have Right to Work protections for employees. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.