Sacramento, CA (February 3, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, eighteen California civil servants have filed a class action lawsuit in U. S. District Court against the SEIU Local 1000 union. The lawsuit challenges the union’s policy of requiring nonunion employees to affirmatively object to paying for union politics and asks that the SEIU seek employees’ permission before deducting union dues for political activism.

The lawsuit builds on a landmark, Foundation-won Supreme Court decision from 2012. In Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, the Supreme Court held for the first time that a union should not have collected dues for a political spending campaign without nonmembers’ affirmative consent.

Although nonunion civil servants have the right to opt out of paying union dues for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activism, many unions require employees to object to those payments before they’ll cease collecting full union dues. The lawsuit seeks to shift that burden from employees, whose paychecks and rights are at stake, to union officials, who would then be required to seek nonmembers’ permission before collecting full dues.

The lawsuit notes that SEIU 1000’s current policy – which requires nonunion public employees to object to union political spending – effectively rigs the game the union’s favor. Although nonunion employees are supposed to receive notices informing them of their rights to opt out of paying for union politics, several of the plaintiffs never received such notices. Others were only notified after a union-designated window period for objecting to the payment of full dues had already expired.

Nonunion civil servants who did receive the notice in a timely fashion found that it downplayed employees’ right to opt out. Information about refraining from paying dues for union politics was printed in small text and featured below the union’s more prominent pitch for full membership.

If any employees received the notice in a timely fashion and were able to decipher the union’s explanation of their right to refrain from paying full union dues, they then had to undergo an onerous, bureaucratic process to assert that right.

“Nonunion civil servants shouldn’t have to navigate a cumbersome opt-out procedure to assert their right to refrain from union politics,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope the courts recognize the importance of protecting independent-minded employees by requiring union officials to get their consent before deducting dues for political activism.”

Local Transit Worker Wins Federal Settlement After Union Officials Misled and Ignored Worker to Pocket Extra Union Dues

Union officials refused to acknowledge worker’s request to exercise right to refrain from union dues payments

Mesa, AZ (January 30, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local transit worker has won a federal settlement after union officials violated his right to refrain from paying union dues or fees.

David Azbell worked as a bus driver for Veolia Transportation and then for First Transit, which took over Veolia Transportation’s contract with the city. In June 2013, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1433 union officials were considering calling a strike against the new company to pressure company management into entering a monopoly bargaining agreement with the union.

Unsatisfied with the ATU Local 1433 union officials’ so-called “representation,” Azbell hand-delivered a letter to a union official stating that under Arizona’s Right to Work law he was resigning his union membership and refraining from paying union dues. When Azbell submitted his letter of resignation, the union official told him that the union hierarchy would still continue to take union dues from his paychecks.

Click here to read the full release.

Mesa, AZ (January 30, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local transit worker has won a federal settlement after union officials violated his right to refrain from paying union dues or fees.

David Azbell worked as a bus driver for Veolia Transportation and then for First Transit, which took over Veolia Transportation’s contract with the city. In June 2013, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1433 union officials were considering calling a strike against the new company to pressure company management into entering a monopoly bargaining agreement with the union.

Unsatisfied with the ATU Local 1433 union officials’ so-called “representation,” Azbell hand-delivered a letter to a union official stating that under Arizona’s Right to Work law he was resigning his union membership and refraining from paying union dues. When Azbell submitted his letter of resignation, the union official told him that the union hierarchy would still continue to take union dues from his paychecks. Azbell then received a letter from the same union official stating that he would have to wait until a so-called “window period” before he could revoke his dues deduction authorization – a document used by union officials to take dues from workers’ paychecks – and thus stop union dues payments.

Azbell then filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against the union seeking a refund of all union dues illegally seized from his paychecks after he resigned union membership. He pointed out in the charge that, because the ATU Local 1433 union did not have a contract in effect with his employer, he had the unconditional right to revoke his dues deduction authorization and refrain from union dues payments.

The settlement requires ATU Local 1433 union officials to refund all illegally-seized dues, plus interest. The union must also post a notice on its website and in the workplace, informing Azbell’s coworkers of their rights to refrain from union membership and dues payments.

“Transit union bosses ignored state and federal law to illegally coerce this worker into full dues payments against his will,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case underscores just how important Arizona’s Right to Work law is for workers.”

Sanford, FL (January 30, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Central Florida Regional Hospital nurse has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against her employer and the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United union for refusing to allow her to stop paying union dues.

On November 15, 2013, Margaret Clark sent letters to the union and her employer announcing her decision to resign from the union and stop paying union dues. However, union officials refused to accept Clark’s dues revocation, and her employer continued to deduct union dues from her salary.

Under Florida’s popular Right to Work law, all employees have the right to resign from a union and stop paying union dues at any time. Moreover, the dues authorization form Central Florida Regional Hospital nurses sign is explicitly conditioned on the employees’ continued union membership, meaning it no longer applies once an employee leaves the union.

Union officials and Central Florida Regional Hospital management also maintain a policy that requires employees to communicate with them via certified mail – but only when employees wish to revoke their automatic dues payments. Clark’s charges also challenge this requirement on the ground that it unfairly burdens employees who wish to leave the union and stop paying dues.

Clark’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law.

“Union and hospital officials are defying Florida’s longstanding Right to Work law so the union can keep collecting dues from a nurse who no longer wishes to be a union member,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope the NLRB intervenes promptly to safeguard the rights of independent-minded Florida employees.”

Foundation Requests Investigation of NLRB’s Conduct in Chattanooga Volkswagen Case

Leaked internal emails bring agency’s impartiality further into question

Washington, DC (January 29, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, led by former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member John Raudabaugh, have requested an official inquiry into the NLRB’s conduct in adjudicating several Chattanooga Volkswagen America workers’ charges against VW and the United Auto Worker (UAW) union during the on-going, highly-contentious UAW organizing campaign.

Foundation staff attorneys have asked the NLRB’s Inspector General to investigate the agency’s conduct during its processing of the workers’ unfair labor practice charges that the NLRB Division of Advice instructed the NLRB Regional Director in Atlanta to dismiss.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (January 29, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, led by former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member John Raudabaugh, have requested an official inquiry into the NLRB’s conduct in adjudicating several Chattanooga Volkswagen America workers’ charges against VW and the United Auto Worker (UAW) union during the on-going, highly-contentious UAW organizing campaign.

Foundation staff attorneys have asked the NLRB’s Inspector General to investigate the agency’s conduct during its processing of the workers’ unfair labor practice charges that the NLRB Division of Advice instructed the NLRB Regional Director in Atlanta to dismiss.

Several VW workers filed charges alleging improprieties in the UAW union hierarchy’s card check process, including getting workers to sign union authorization cards by coercion and misrepresentation and using cards signed too long ago to be legally valid. Some of those workers also filed a federal charge against the company alleging that statements by German VW officials are illegally coercing their fellow workers to accept UAW monopoly bargaining power over their workplace.

On January 23, NLRB staff in Washington, DC, released the Division of Advice’s two “Advice Memorandums” to members of the media in Chattanooga and Knoxville but not to the workers’ Foundation staff attorneys. Foundation public relations staff later received the NLRB memos from a reporter in Chattanooga. The Board staff released these Advice Memorandums to the press even though such memos are rarely, if ever, released to anyone in open cases.

An email the NLRB Atlanta Region accidentally forwarded to Foundation attorneys suggests that VW’s lawyers also received inquiries regarding the memos’ content from a press contact in Knoxville before those lawyers received the memos. Furthermore, the email shows that the Regional Director in Atlanta questioned the propriety of the Advice Memorandums’ release to the media, contrary to longstanding NLRB practice.

The NLRB Regional Director’s message then states, “I hope the RTW folks do not pick apart the dismissal letters because they may not exactly track the advice wording.” Foundation attorneys are concerned that the NLRB’s hurried public release of memos favorable to VW and the UAW calls into question the agency’s impartiality in the workers’ cases.

Foundation attorneys also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NLRB seeking full disclosure regarding the agency’s handling of the case and its contacts with UAW agents.

“The NLRB’s actions undermined Foundation attorneys’ ability to advise their clients before the NLRB’s dismissal of their cases became publicly known,” said Ray LaJeunesse, Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB’s conduct further cements the perception that one set of rules applies to benefit union bosses and another set of rules applies against workers who wish to remain union free.”

Washington, DC (January 21, 2013) – Tuesday morning, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys will argue a case before the United States Supreme Court that will decide whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will.

The case, Harris v. Quinn, is a class-action lawsuit filed by Pam Harris and seven other Illinois care providers after Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 individuals who offer in-home care to disabled persons as “public employees,” thus rendering them vulnerable to unwanted union organizing. However, the scheme only designates providers as public employees for the purposes of unionization, leaving the homecare recipients as the employers for all other aspects of the providers’ work.

As a result of Quinn’s order, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) organizers have been seeking to acquire monopoly bargaining control over this newly-created class of public employees.

Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former Governor Blagojevich, which designated over 20,000 personal care providers as state workers solely for the purpose of forcing them into union ranks. Quinn then expanded Blagojevich’s directive to cover an additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the original order.

Several legal observers and pundits have referred to Harris as a “sleeper” case. At least 18 states have imposed schemes to unionize home-based personal care and childcare workers. This case could have significant ramifications of how the government determines what workers, who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele, qualify as state employees. Foundation attorneys will argue that such schemes violate the providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

“This scheme, which forces small business owners and even parents and grandparents taking care of children into union political association is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear. The government does not have the power to force citizens to accept its handpicked political representation to lobby itself.

“Forcing homecare providers into union ranks just for the sake of lobbying is not only unconstitutional, but immoral. We hope the Court will agree and protect the rights of Pam Harris and tens of thousands of other care providers by striking down this constitutionally-dubious scheme.”

Indiana Workers File Brief in Support of State’s Right to Work Law

Hoosier citizens contest spurious union legal challenge

Crown Point, IN (January 14, 2014) – Two Indiana citizens have submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s Right to Work law from a union legal challenge pending in state court.

The two workers, Douglas Richards and David Brubaker, filed the brief with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The brief was filed together with the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

The case is a lawsuit filed by the United Steelworker (USW) union that makes a number of dubious claims about Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law, including the argument that unions have a right to force workers to pay for their unwanted services.

Click here to read the full release.

Crown Point, IN (January 14, 2014) – Two Indiana citizens have submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s Right to Work law from a union legal challenge pending in state court.

The two workers, Douglas Richards and David Brubaker, filed the brief with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The brief was filed together with the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

The case is a lawsuit filed by the United Steelworker (USW) union that makes a number of dubious claims about Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law, including the argument that unions have a right to force workers to pay for their unwanted services.

Both Richards and Brubaker are or were employed in workplaces where a forced dues contract was in place between their employers and the USW union before the Right to Work law was enacted. Consequently, both workers have been forced to pay USW union dues and fees just to keep their jobs, despite the fact neither belonged to the union nor sought the union’s so-called “representation.”

In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys point out that state Right to Work laws are protected under federal labor law. The workers also argue in their brief that the state’s Right to Work law protects workers’ human and civil rights to earn a living without being forced to join or financially support a private organization. The brief also lays out how every contested state Right to Work law has been upheld as constitutional.

Last month, two additional workers filed a similar brief rebutting a union-backed legal challenge brought by International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 officials. That suit is pending at the Indiana Supreme Court.

“Hoosier citizens want to make their voices heard against a frivolous union legal challenge to Indiana’s Right to Work law,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t be forced to join or pay tribute to a union just to keep a job, which is why we applaud these workers for standing up for their rights under Indiana’s Right to Work law.”

Suffolk County, NY (January 14, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local teacher has reached a settlement with two unions after union officials kept in the union treasury dues she paid that were supposed to have gone to charity.

Maureen Stavrakoglou is employed by the Brentwood School District, which requires all teachers to pay dues to the Brentwood Teachers Association (BTA) union and its state affiliate, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) union, as a condition of employment. However, teachers with sincere religious objections to supporting a union can request to have their union dues redirected to a mutually agreed-upon charity.

In 2005, BTA and NYSUT union officials came to an agreement with Stavrakoglou that redirected all of her NYSUT dues to charity. After the agreement was finalized, Stavrakoglou asked union officials to redirect her dues for 2006-2007 to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. The BTA’s president subsequently assured Stavrakoglou that her dues would be sent to the designated charities.

From 2006 to 2013, Stavrakoglou designated a new charity each year as the recipient of her union dues. However, at least two of the charities she chose – The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep Foundation – never received a donation from the union under Stavrakoglou’s name. A third charity, The NYC Firefighters’ Burn Center Foundation, only received Stavrakoglou’s donation after she called union officials to inquire about the status of her dues. After discovering that union officials were not following through on their promises, Stavrakoglou filed suit in Suffolk County Supreme Court in 2011.

Stavrakoglou’s settlement requires the unions to make up for every missed donation from 2006 to 2013, plus interest, to the charities she designated. The NYSUT union is also required to assign a staff attorney to oversee the charitable payment process and ensure Stavrakoglou’s future donations are made in a timely fashion.

“After assuring Maureen Stavrakoglou that they would respect her religious objections and redirect her dues to charity, teacher union bosses brazenly kept the money for themselves,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“We’re happy to report that Mrs. Stavrakoglou’s donations will finally be honored,” continued Semmens. “However, this type of abuse will continue as long as unions are permitted to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. That’s why New York needs a Right to Work law, which would make the payment of union dues strictly voluntary.”