Washington, DC (September 16, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.

The new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. However, these rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Until the rule changes, which were implemented in late August, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys believe the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Attorneys from the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging the new rule in the same complaint on behalf of two member businesses, Southeast Sealing, Inc. and Lehigh Valley Racquet and 24/7 Fitness Clubs.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the NLRB administers union certification and decertification elections and adjudicates cases when workers, employers, or union officials file unfair labor practice charges against either unions or companies. However, the NLRB is now forcing its way into as many as six million private-sector workplaces by inventing out of whole cloth a new unfair labor practice without Congressional approval. And anyone can file the unfair labor practice charge – not just the company’s employees.

No other federal agency has ever made it unlawful to fail to post a notice that wasn’t required by Congress. Any job provider that fails to post the biased notice could find itself forced into a lengthy and costly legal battle. And as a result, Mom and Pop shops, small businesses, larger companies – even some religiously-affiliated organizations – are now under the Obama Labor Board’s microscope and will feel the pressure to hand over their employees to forced unionism.

“Under these new rules, employers are essentially weaponized against workers,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “This ‘divide and conquer’ strategy should erase all doubt that the biased and ideologically-charged Obama Labor Board has turned into an organizing tool for Big Labor set to do one thing: force more workers into paying union dues to keep their jobs.”

“The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is uniquely qualified to demonstrate that this one-sided rule is nothing more than yet another attempt by the Obama NLRB to force more workers into union ranks and stifle the rights of employees who want nothing to do with a union.”

California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court

Court to review Ninth Circuit decision requiring California state employees to contribute to union political fund

Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials’ political activism.

Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a “special assessment” to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union’s political fund.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials’ political activism.

Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union’s political fund.

Under the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment must be notified of which part of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining and be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for members-only events and union boss political activism.

In 2007, a federal district court ruled that the CSEA was required to provide a notice to nonunion employees about the assessment, allow them to opt-out of paying into the union political fund, provide a refund of monies spent on union-boss politics, and pay interest from the dates of the deductions to nonmembers who chose to opt out.

After CSEA union lawyers appealed the case, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed that decision in December 2010. On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court announced it would review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

"Allowing the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to stand would further undermine state employees’ First Amendment rights and encourage union bosses to extract more forced dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment," stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is unconscionable for a court to force employees who want nothing to do with the union or its so-called ‘representation’ to subsidize union political activities."

Click here to read the Foundation’s brief.

Right to Work President Mark Mix issued a statement commemorating Labor Day and warning of looming Big Labor power grabs. You can listen to the statement using the embedded player below, download an .mp3 recording here, or read the statement here.

Washington, DC (September 2, 2011) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, released the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday.

“This Labor Day, many workers will enjoy a well-deserved long weekend. But as we prepare to celebrate with friends and family, union officials – working in concert with the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board – are mounting an unprecedented bureaucratic offensive to grab more coercive power. Their goal is simple: To expand the number of workers forced to pay union dues and accept mandatory union representation just to keep their jobs.

“Big Labor’s ambitions were highlighted last week by the abrupt overturn of the NLRB’s Dana decision, which provided a modest check on abusive ‘card check’ union organizing. Instead of allowing workers a window period to contest the outcome of a card check drive with a secret ballot vote, the NLRB has ensured that union operatives need only present a bare majority of signed authorization cards – often collected through violent or unsavory means – to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges.

“And this decision is just the tip of the iceberg. The Obama Board – aided and abetted by its Big Labor allies – is moving forward with onerous new regulations to facilitate union organizing, including rules that will require companies to turn over employees’ home addresses to aggressive union organizers. Meanwhile, the NLRB is suing several states for attempting to protect workers’ access to secret ballot elections and has issued a complaint against Boeing for locating its newest production line in Right to Work South Carolina.

“Throughout the United States, more than 12 million American workers are already compelled to pay union dues just to keep their jobs. Millions more are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they never asked or voted for it.

“Meanwhile, many workers feel they have no choice but to pay for organized labor’s extensive political activities, while others are still unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide.

“This Labor Day, we commend all workers brave enough to stand up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms. But we must also continue to fight Big Labor’s bureaucratic attack, which threatens to further subvert workers’ rights.”

Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent

Worker advocate denounces NLRB’s ruling to take away protection workers have against card check forced unionism

Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.

Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.

The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.

Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.

Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.

The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.

Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide. The Foundation is providing free legal aid in both the original Dana case and in the newly-decided Lamons Gasket case in which the Board overturned the Dana protections. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation made the following statement regarding the ruling:

"The Obama Labor Board’s ruling to kill the Dana Corp. precedent that allows workers a secret ballot vote to kick out a union that gained control of the workplace in an abusive ‘card check’ campaign adds to an already exhaustive list of paybacks from the Obama Administration to Big Labor.

"Big Labor and its allies have launched a full-scale assault on worker freedom and the Obama Administration is working tirelessly to appease them through bureaucratic means after they failed in Congress. The American people and their elected representatives in Congress oppose the Card Check Forced Unionism bill, but the Obama Labor Board seems determined to impose card check on American workers in every way it can.

"Taken with the NLRB’s other recent actions, the Obama Administration has made it easier for union operatives to steamroll over workers while making it next to impossible for independent-minded workers to stand up for their rights or decertify the union hierarchy.

"While the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees, no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union, or accept the union’s so-called representation, to get or keep a job."

Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism

National Right to Work Foundation President criticizes Labor Board’s decision to selectively publicize workers’ rights

Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.

Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:

"The NLRB’s new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.

"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama’s NLRB comes out with a new ‘posting rule’ to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop’ stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism."

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.

Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:

"The NLRB’s new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.

"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama’s NLRB comes out with a new ‘posting rule’ to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop’ stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism.

"This unprecedented rule change fundamentally changes (and expands) the NLRB from a remedial role to an agency that is involved with every workplace in the country even if no allegations of violations have occurred.

"And as the long list of Big Labor paybacks on behalf of the Obama administration grows, workers are becoming increasingly susceptible to the whims of a biased and ideologically-charged Labor Board and its union boss beneficiaries.

"If the NLRB was really interested in protecting workers, they would inform workers of the dangers of coercive ‘card check’ drives and publicize their rights, under law, to remove an unwanted union instead of burdening job providers and independent-minded employees with new rules that undermine workplace freedom."

Tyson Foods Worker Slaps Union with Federal Charges for Threats and Intimidation

Wisconsin needs full Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses

Jefferson, Wisconsin (August 25, 2011) – A meat processing worker has filed federal charges against a local union and Tyson Foods, Inc. officials after union officials illegally threatened to retaliate against him for exercising his rights.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Tyson employee Gregory Langron of Janesville filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last week.

United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 538 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges over Tyson Foods employees in the Jefferson plant. Langron recently exercised his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.

However, because Wisconsin does not have a Right to Work law, most workers who refrain from formal union membership can still be forced to pay a part of union dues as a condition of employment, but cannot be compelled to pay the portion used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities.

UFCW Local 538 union officials recently threatened to prosecute Langron with internal union kangaroo court proceedings for allegedly initiating a petition to remove the union hierarchy from the workplace. Union officials also illegally told Langron that they would not represent him despite the fact that he is forced to pay union dues and accept UFCW union boss “representation” because Wisconsin lacks a Right to Work law for private sector workers.

Read the entire release here.