Minnesota Child Care Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme

Child care providers fight against Governor Dayton’s dictate that pushes childcare business owners into union

Minneapolis, MN (January 19, 2012) – A group of home-based child care providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Governor Mark Dayton’s recent executive order designed to forcibly unionize the state’s providers.

Jennifer Parrish from Rochester filed the suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Parrish and other providers seek to halt Dayton’s executive order intended to designate American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials as the monopoly bargaining and political representatives of thousands of providers in the state.

Read the entire release here.

Minneapolis, MN (January 19, 2012) – A group of home-based child care providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Governor Mark Dayton’s recent executive order designed to forcibly unionize the state’s providers.

Jennifer Parrish from Rochester filed the suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Parrish and other providers seek to halt Dayton’s executive order intended to designate American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials as the monopoly bargaining and political representatives of thousands of providers in the state.

Home-based child care and personal care providers are challenging similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in numerous states across the country, including Michigan and Illinois.

Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate the providers’ First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, association, and petition of government guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because the government does not have the power to force citizens to accept the government’s handpicked political representation to lobby itself.

“This union boss power grab scheme is nothing more than pure political payback and was popularized by disgraced Governors Gray Davis of California and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “The forced political association that is occurring in the North Star State as a result of Governor Dayton’s dictate is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear.”

The lawsuit is the second legal challenge to Minnesota’s child care provider unionization scheme, but the first in federal court. Another lawsuit challenges Dayton’s authority to enact the scheme under Minnesota law.

Boca Raton, FL (January 19, 2012) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall has won the right to proceed with a case challenging a backroom organizing deal between the UNITE HERE Local 355 union and his employer. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal and remanded the case to Florida District Court for a decision on the merits.

In 2004, UNITE HERE Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming entered into an agreement in which union officials promised to spend over one hundred thousand dollars on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against Mardi Gras facilities.

In return, Mardi Gras agreed to hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities during a coercive ‘card check’ organizing campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether its employees unionized.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mulhall sued UNITE HERE in 2008. Mulhall argues that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because they made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.

To prevent backroom deals that undermine employee rights, Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) prohibits employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions. Although a Florida District Court dismissed Mulhall’s case on the grounds that the company’s organizing assistance was not a thing of value, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, noting that the company’s support could be of substantial value to a union.

So-called “neutrality agreements” like the one agreed to by UNITE HERE and Mardi Gras Gaming give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization. Armed with employees’ home addresses and access to company facilities, union officials frequently harass and cajole workers on and off the job until they sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

“We’re pleased that Martin Mulhall’s efforts to challenge this corrupt bargain – a clear violation of Section 302 of the LMRA – are moving forward,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Federal law is supposed to protect employees from exactly this type of backroom deal, in which union officials sell out worker interests for an agreement that pushes more employees into the union’s dues-paying ranks.”

Kissimmee, FL (January 19, 2012) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, an Osceola Regional Medical Center employee has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East for refusing to allow him to resign from the union.

On December 9, 2011, Eduardo Lopez sent SEIU officials a letter resigning his union membership. Despite the fact that employees have the constitutionally protected right to resign from a union at any time, SEIU officials rejected Lopez’s request on December 20.

Moreover, the union’s official policy requires any employee who wishes to stop paying union dues to revoke his or her dues authorization via certified mail. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency responsible for administering private sector labor law, has repeatedly ruled that such policies are unlawful.

According to Foundation attorneys, the SEIU’s convoluted resignation policy conforms to a pattern of union obstructionism aimed at deterring independent-minded employees from exercising their rights to resign from union membership and opt out of paying union dues. In November 2011, for example, a health care practitioner at the Sutter Roseville Medical Center in California reached a favorable settlement with SEIU United Healthcare Workers West after union officials impeded nonunion employees’ efforts to leave the union and opt out of full union dues.

“Union bosses often resort to Byzantine resignation procedures to discourage workers from leaving the union and opting out of union dues,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should strike down these obstructionist policies immediately to ensure that employees like Eduardo Lopez aren’t forced to remain union members against their will.”

Under Florida’s popular Right to Work law, nonunion employees cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. “This illegal scheme is nothing more than an attempt by union bosses to violate the Right to Work principle, which holds that union membership and dues payment should be completely voluntary,” concluded Semmens.

LA Times Printing Press Workers Slap Teamster Union Bosses with Federal Charges

Teamster union hierarchy continues three-year-long campaign of harassment and intimidation

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.

Read the entire release here.

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.