Mechanic Challenges Obama Recess Appointments in Federal Court

Right to Work Foundation attorneys argue purported recess appointments are invalid because Senate was not in actual recess

Columbus, OH (August 17, 2012) – A Columbus-area Center City International Trucks mechanic is challenging in federal court President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Kyle Chilton filed his legal challenge with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Friday.

Chilton’s case stems from a battle over a petition he and his coworkers signed asking for a vote to remove the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union from his workplace. A three-member panel of the NLRB dismissed Chilton’s petition. The decision means that Chilton and his coworkers cannot submit another petition for at least three years. Two of Obama’s three purported recess appointments to the Board participated on the panel.

Click here to read the full release.

Columbus, OH (August 17, 2012) – A Columbus-area Center City International Trucks mechanic is challenging in federal court President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Kyle Chilton filed his legal challenge with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Friday.

Chilton’s case stems from a battle over a petition he and his coworkers signed asking for a vote to remove the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union from his workplace. A three-member panel of the NLRB dismissed Chilton’s petition. The decision means that Chilton and his coworkers cannot submit another petition for at least three years. Two of Obama’s three purported recess appointments to the Board participated on the panel.

Foundation staff attorneys argue in their complaint that the recess appointments are unconstitutional because the U.S. Senate was still in session per the body’s rules. Therefore the President could not make the appointments to the NLRB without Senate confirmation.

If Foundation attorneys’ argument that the Obama’s NLRB appointments are unconstitutional prevails, then the Board has only two valid members. The Board would then lack a quorum to enact rules or enforce federal labor law under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in 2010.

Foundation attorneys also filed a brief on Monday in the case Center for Social Change, Inc. v. NLRB, pending now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Another important legal challenge to the Obama recess appointments is a Foundation case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. That case is among the first in the nation to reach the appellate courts challenging the Obama recess appointments and will help set the standard for all further challenges.

“Barack Obama’s so-called recess appointments to the Labor Board clearly violate the U.S. Constitution,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Because the Board does not have a legitimate quorum, it must cease handing down rulings until a legitimate quorum is established.”

Minneapolis, MN (August 16, 2012) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a New Brighton Ford journeyman technician has filed a federal appeal with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C.

Dylan McHenry of Hammond, Wisconsin, filed the appeal after the NLRB Regional Office in Minneapolis partially dismissed his federal charge that the Teamsters Local 974 union illegally confiscated union dues payments from his paychecks for political activism and refused to follow federal disclosure requirements.

Because Minnesota does not have Right to Work protections making union affiliation completely voluntary, McHenry is still forced to pay fees to the union to keep his job. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation’s Communication Workers of America v. Beck case that workers are not required to pay union dues or fees for union boss political activities, lobbying, and member-only events.

Union officials must also provide workers with an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures. This procedural safeguard helps inform workers of how their forced union dues are being spent and makes it less difficult for workers to hold union officials accountable.

After McHenry resigned from formal union membership, Teamster union officials provided him with an incomplete breakdown of union expenditures. The union was taking money from McHenry’s paychecks for the Teamster hierarchy’s political action committee – a clear violation of federal law.

The NLRB Regional Director dismissed the charge after Local 974 union officials claimed the illegal dues payments were a “mistake.” The regional office refused to direct the union to refund the illegally-seized union dues or impose any other punishment against the union, even though the illegal extractions continue.

“Teamster union officials were caught red-handed illegally taking workers’ hard-earned money for the union bosses’ political agenda. Yet, the NLRB regional office in Minneapolis is allowing them to get away with it,” said Mark Mix, National Right to Work President. “To prevent these types of forced unionism abuses in the future, Minnesota needs to pass a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.

Twenty-three states have Right to Work protections for their workers. Recent public polling shows that 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.

Ready-Mix Concrete Worker Seeks to Break Free of Teamster Union Dues Scheme

Teamsters refuse to follow federal disclosure requirements

Goshen, IN (August 15, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, an Eagle Ready Mix concrete worker has filed a federal charge against a local Teamster union for violating his rights.

Edward Chupp of Goshen filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) earlier this month.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 364 union officials never informed workers of their rights, including their right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck case.

Click here to read the full release.

Goshen, IN (August 15, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, an Eagle Ready Mix concrete worker has filed a federal charge against a local Teamster union for violating his rights.

Edward Chupp of Goshen filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) earlier this month.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 364 union officials never informed workers of their rights, including their right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck case.

In May, Chupp informed the union that he was exercising his right under Beck to refrain from formal, full-dues-paying union membership.

Although Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law states that no employee can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment, forced dues contracts between unions and employers entered into prior to the effective date of the law remain in force throughout the state. Therefore, Chupp still must pay a portion of union dues to keep his job until a new contract goes into effect. However, Chupp cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for political, lobbying, and member-only activities.

Despite his resignation, Teamsters Local 364 union officials continue to confiscate full union dues from his paychecks.

Additionally, union officials refuse to provide Chupp the financial disclosure required by federal law to ensure that workers are not illegally paying for union boss political activities and union member-only events.

“Teamster union officials are extracting full union dues from workers who want to exercise their rights to refrain from formal union membership,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This illegal action must stop.”

Wisconsin Civil Servants Defend Governor’s Public-Sector Unionism Reforms in Federal Court

Workers ask court to uphold reform measure protecting most Badger State public workers from forced unionism

Chicago, IL (August 14, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to uphold all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, known as “Act 10.”

Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz filed their reply brief Monday.

The workers, who are forced to accept the “representation” of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers are challenging a lower court judge’s ruling striking down Wisconsin’s new union recertification requirements and the ban on the use of taxpayer funded-payroll systems to collect union dues for general employees, as well as excluding them from the case.

Click here to read the full release.

Chicago, IL (August 14, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to uphold all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, known as “Act 10.”

Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz filed their reply brief Monday.

The workers, who are forced to accept the “representation” of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers are challenging a lower court judge’s ruling striking down Wisconsin’s new union recertification requirements and the ban on the use of taxpayer funded-payroll systems to collect union dues for general employees, as well as excluding them from the case.

The workers stated in their initial brief in the district court that “they equate the ‘services’ provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment” and do not feel the state should be the bagman for union officials.

In their brief, the workers ask the appellate court to uphold the law as constitutional, relying on the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that union bosses enjoy an “extraordinary power” to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, but have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct union dues or fees from workers’ paychecks.

Meanwhile, three additional Wisconsin civil servants continue to defend Walker’s reforms against union challenges in other cases pending before state and federal courts.

“Union bosses from across the state of Wisconsin are fighting tooth and nail to strike down any limit to their power,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “No worker should ever be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, which is why Wisconsin should go a step further by passing Right to Work protections to protect all Badger State employees from forced union affiliation.”

Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Recess Appointments in Federal Court

Attorneys argue purported recess appointments are invalid because Senate was not in actual recess

Washington, DC (August 13, 2012) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief in the high-profile legal battle over President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Foundation attorneys filed the amicus curiae brief on Monday in the case Center for Social Change, Inc. v. NLRB, pending now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (August 13, 2012) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief in the high-profile legal battle over President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Foundation attorneys filed the amicus curiae brief on Monday in the case Center for Social Change, Inc. v. NLRB, pending now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Another direct legal challenge to the Obama recess appointments is a Foundation case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. That case is among the first in the nation to reach the appellate courts challenging the Obama recess appointments and will help set the standard for all further challenges.

Foundation staff attorneys argue in their brief that the recess appointments are unconstitutional because the U.S. Senate was still in session per the body’s rules. Therefore the President could not make the appointments to the NLRB without Senate confirmation.

If Foundation attorneys’ argument that the Obama’s NLRB appointments are unconstitutional prevails, then the Board has only two valid members. The Board would then have lacked a quorum since December 2011 to enact rules or enforce federal labor law under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in 2010.

“Barack Obama’s so-called recess appointments to the Labor Board clearly violate the U.S. Constitution,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Because the Board does not have a legitimate quorum, it must cease handing down rulings in Foundation-supported cases, and all other cases, until a legitimate quorum is established.”

Washington, DC (August 6, 2012) – In response to the National Mediation Board’s proposed rule changes regarding union elections in the air and railway industries, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an organization that provides free assistance to thousands of workers nationwide, submitted comments faulting the Board for ignoring the law’s persistent bias toward forced unionization.

The Foundation’s comments focus on the hurdles facing employees in the air and railway industries who wish to remove unwanted union “representation.” Under current law, the Railway Labor Act lacks an explicit procedure for ejecting a union. The Foundation’s comments encourage the National Mediation Board to regularize union decertification procedures to allow rail and airline workers to more easily remove an unwanted union presence.

The Foundation’s comments also urge the Board to allow all workers – including new hires – to vote in unionization elections even if they were not part of the company when a petition for a unionization election was first submitted. Finally, the comments argue that the 50 percent showing of interest threshold that triggers unionization elections should be applied when new bargaining units are created as a result of a merger instead of a lower threshold supported by unions.

“Currently, employees in the rail and airline industries have no clear blueprint for removing an unwanted union from their workplaces,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The National Mediation Board’s proposed rule changes make no effort to correct this glaring omission, which gives union bosses carte blanche to run roughshod over workers’ rights once they acquire monopoly bargaining privileges.”