Los Angeles, CA (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Los Angeles Times newspaper printing press operators have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for violating their rights.

Leon Carey, Jr. and James Clayton filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Wednesday.

Recently, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (GCC/IBT) Local 140-N union and company officials entered into a contract which purports to require all employees to be full-dues-paying union members, even though full membership cannot be enforced under federal law. Moreover, union officials failed to inform 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.

Instead, Teamster Local 140-N union officials sent the workers a letter ordering them to join the union and pay full dues or face termination while ignoring the workers’ previous letters informing union officials that they were refraining from union membership.

Because California is not a Right to Work state, employees can be forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment. However, employees cannot be legally compelled to join a union against their will and cannot be compelled to pay union dues used for union politics and member-only events.

“Teamster union officials have conducted an illegal campaign to extract full union dues from these workers wanting to exercise their rights to refrain from formal union membership, even though union officials can still force these workers under their control regardless of their union membership status,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Making union membership and dues-payment completely voluntary is the only way to prevent this type of abuse in the future, which is why California desperately needs a Right to Work law.”

Workers in 22 states enjoy the protections of a state Right to Work law and 80 percent of Americans, including 80 percent of union members, support the Right to Work principle.

Michigan Childcare Providers File Federal Appeal Seeking Refunds for Providers Forcefully Unionized

Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue federal class-action lawsuit against union officials to recover millions in illegally confiscated dues

Cincinnati, OH (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five Michigan home-based childcare providers have filed a federal appeal to win back forced union dues taken from tens of thousands of providers in the state.

Carrie Schlaud, Diana Orr, Peggy Mashke, and Edward and Nora Gross originally filed a federal class-action suit against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm and a United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) coalition, the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, for designating home childcare providers who accepted state assistance as public employees solely for the purposes of CCPTM “representation” and forcing them to pay union dues.

Under Granholm’s direction, the Michigan Department of Human Services created the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council to provide union officials with an entity to negotiate with as the childcare providers’ “management.” Working with the council, CCPTM operatives staged a union certification election to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges over Michigan childcare providers.

Although only 15 percent of the 40,000 childcare providers receiving state assistance voted in the union certification election, CCPTM union bosses were then granted monopoly lobbying privileges and the power to collect union dues from home-based care providers.

Read the entire release here.

Cincinnati, OH (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five Michigan home-based childcare providers have filed a federal appeal to win back forced union dues taken from tens of thousands of providers in the state.

Carrie Schlaud, Diana Orr, Peggy Mashke, and Edward and Nora Gross originally filed a federal class-action suit against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm and a United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) coalition, the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, for designating home childcare providers who accepted state assistance as public employees solely for the purposes of CCPTM “representation” and forcing them to pay union dues.

Under Granholm’s direction, the Michigan Department of Human Services created the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council to provide union officials with an entity to negotiate with as the childcare providers’ “management.” Working with the council, CCPTM operatives staged a union certification election to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges over Michigan childcare providers.

Although only 15 percent of the 40,000 childcare providers receiving state assistance voted in the union certification election, CCPTM union bosses were then granted monopoly lobbying privileges and the power to collect union dues from home-based care providers.

The five childcare providers won a settlement with Governor Rick Snyder ensuring that Michigan will no longer be able to force home-based childcare providers into union ranks. However CCPTM union officials still possess forced union dues previously collected from tens of thousands of providers.

The plaintiffs and National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to overturn a lower court’s ruling denying the workers class-action status in their quest to obtain refunds from the CCPTM hierarchy.

“Our work won’t be over until UAW and AFSCME union bosses are forced to return over two million dollars in forced dues they extracted from unwilling childcare providers since 2008,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “No worker should be compelled to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, which is why Michigan desperately needs Right to Work protections for its workers.”

Worker Advocate Challenges Constitutionality of Obama’s Controversial Labor Board Recess Appointments

Case over controversial NLRB posting becomes first legal challenge to Presidential attempt to make “recess appointments” without actual recess of the Senate

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB’s posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation’s case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB’s lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama’s recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

In the motion papers, Foundation attorneys argue that the controversial appointees to the Board are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate is still in session per the body’s rules, so there was no “recess” for the President to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Therefore the NLRB lacks the necessary quorum to implement the new posting rules. Foundation attorneys are asking the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the three recess appointees.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB’s posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation’s case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB’s lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama’s recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

In the motion papers, Foundation attorneys argue that the controversial appointees to the Board are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate is still in session per the body’s rules, so there was no “recess” for the President to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Therefore the NLRB lacks the necessary quorum to implement the new posting rules. Foundation attorneys are asking the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the three recess appointees.

“President Barack Obama has already shown time and again that he is willing to abuse his executive authority to force more workers into union-dues-paying ranks,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Now Obama’s executive abuse jeopardizes the constitutional balance our country holds very dear, all in the name of paying back his Big Labor benefactors.”

The implementation of the NLRB’s new posting rules, originally supposed to be in August of last year, has been twice delayed due to the legal challenge in the Foundation’s case. The rules are currently scheduled to be effective on April 30, 2012.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is also a party in the case, but is not party to the Foundation’s motion.

On Tuesday, National Right to Work staff attorneys argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of tens of thousands of California civil servants who were forced to contribute to an SEIU “Political Fight Back Fund” in 2005. The video below gives a overview of what’s at stake in the case, including an interview with Foundation staff attorney Jim Young:

You can also read Right to Work President Mark Mix’s op-ed on the case in The Washington Times. Here’s the key quote:

Forcing civil servants to subsidize the political agenda of an organization to which they don’t belong should offend every American, regardless of political sympathies. Voluntary SEIU members may wish to financially support their organization’s political goals, but nonunion employees – many of whom disagree with the union’s agenda – are under no similar obligation. Freedom of association is a bedrock principle of American democracy, and no one should be compelled to support a group to which they don’t belong.

For more info, check out the Foundation’s Knox webpage, which includes links to relevant legal documents, press releases, and media coverage. 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to release its ruling in the case by June.

The Foundation relies completely on voluntary contributions from its supporters to provide free legal aid. If you can, please chip in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today to support the Foundation’s programs.

Washington, DC (January 10, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys will make their fifteenth appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court, this time representing California state employees challenging a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political fee charged to workers regardless of their union membership status. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement regarding today’s hearing:

"Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case about union bosses using state workers’ hard earned money for politics without the workers’ permission.

"Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – will argue that the workers should not be forced to pay for union officials’ political spending.

"The Court should knock down this scheme – closing a giant loophole that allows union bosses to confiscate money from workers’ paychecks for political spending sprees – and send a message to union officials, once again, that forced political conformity is wrong."

Civil Servants File Brief Opposing Union Challenge to Public-Sector Unionism Reforms

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

Madison, WI (January 9, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, two Wisconsin public employees have filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform. The reform protects the Right to Work for most Wisconsin public workers and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.

Christopher King, a social services specialist for Western Wisconsin Cares, and Carie Kendrick, a custodial lead at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, filed the brief with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The workers, who are forced to accept the “representation” of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers state in their brief 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.”

In their brief, the workers ask the judge to uphold the new law as constitutional and deny the unions’ request to suspend the law. The workers rely on the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory in which the 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.

Read the entire release here.

Madison, WI (January 9, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, two Wisconsin public employees have filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform. The reform protects the Right to Work for most Wisconsin public workers and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.

Christopher King, a social services specialist for Western Wisconsin Cares, and Carie Kendrick, a custodial lead at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, filed the brief with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The workers, who are forced to accept the “representation” of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers state in their brief 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.”

In their brief, the workers ask the judge to uphold the new law as constitutional and deny the unions’ request to suspend the law. The workers rely on the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory in which the 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 – 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 – continue to defend Walker’s reforms in another federal case pending before the court.

“More courageous Wisconsin public servants who want nothing to do with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ are coming forward to protect their Right to Work,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “No worker should be 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.”