Civil Servants Slap Government Union Bosses With Second Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Dues Scheme

Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenge union hierarchy for repeatedly flaunting employees’ constitutional rights

Lancaster, PA (August 3, 2011) – Eight public employees have filed a second federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks in unconstitutional amounts and without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who previously provided the employees with free legal aid in their first lawsuit, filed the suit yesterday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia.

The borough employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1600 union, previously asked the court to protect their National Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and other cases.

In Abood, the High Court ruled that although nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, they cannot be forced to pay for union politics and other union activities unrelated to bargaining. IBEW Local 1600 union officials were compelling the employees to paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues before the lawsuit was settled.

Read the entire release here.

Lancaster, PA (August 3, 2011) – Eight public employees have filed a second federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks in unconstitutional amounts and without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who previously provided the employees with free legal aid in their first lawsuit, filed the suit yesterday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia.

The borough employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1600 union, previously asked the court to protect their National Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and other cases.

In Abood, the High Court ruled that although nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, they cannot be forced to pay for union politics and other union activities unrelated to bargaining. IBEW Local 1600 union officials were compelling the employees to paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues before the lawsuit was settled.

The employees are also asking the court to protect their National Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, which requires union officials to comply with specific due-process and disclosure requirements (such as an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced dues union expenditures) before seizing forced dues from nonmembers. IBEW Local 1600 union officials are taking 90.68 percent of full union dues, which the charge states, includes amounts not constitutionally chargeable under the Abood line of cases.

The employees are again suing to obtain refunds of the amount of forced union dues payments illegally taken from their paychecks, plus interest.

“IBEW union bosses are deliberately keeping rank-and-file workers in the dark to keep their forced-dues gravy train going,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation Legal Information Director. “Pennsylvania should adopt a Right to Work law so independent-minded employees do not have to jump through legal hoop after legal hoop just to find out what they are being charged for.”

Bridgeport, CT (August 1, 2011) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local police officer has reached a settlement with two unions and the City of Bridgeport after filing suit to reclaim illegally-confiscated union dues.

The agreement requires the Bridgeport Police Local 1159 and Council 15 AFSCME, AFL-CIO unions to refund all illegally-seized dues to William Bailey, a nonunion police officer.

Although Bailey is not a union member, all Bridgeport police officers are subject to a monopoly bargaining agreement between the city and the Bridgeport Police Local 1159 and Council 15 AFSCME, AFL-CIO unions. After resigning his union membership in 2007, Bailey indicated that he wished to opt-out of dues unrelated to workplace bargaining in 2011.

Because Connecticut has not passed a Right to Work law, state employees can be forced to pay some union dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson holds that public employees must be notified how much of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining – such as members-only events and political activism – and given the opportunity to opt out of paying for those activities.

Despite this precedent, the City of Bridgeport seized, and union operatives collected, the equivalent of full union dues from Bailey’s paycheck since January 2011.

“We’re happy to report that William Bailey will reclaim some of his earnings, but litigation is no substitute for a law that protects workers’ rights,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Until Connecticut makes union membership and dues payment completely voluntary by passing a Right to Work law, similar abuse will continue elsewhere, unchecked.”

Worker Advocate Asks Federal Labor Board to Uphold Precedent Disallowing Forced Unionization of Grad Students

Foundation files brief supporting university teaching assistants’ First Amendment freedom of association

Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.

Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.

Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.

In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers’ arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.

Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.

Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.

In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers’ arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work. And Foundation attorneys question whether grades would ultimately become a mandatory subject of monopoly bargaining if paid graduate students were treated as employees for purposes of unionization.

“While the UAW may have Marxist dreams that students are ‘workers’ (as opposed to students), who will be in the vanguard of an economic revolution when the workers of the world unite, the fact remains that graduate students are students and not employees, and have little commonality of interest with most employees,” the Foundation pointed out in its brief.

Foundation attorneys also argue that allowing union officials monopoly bargaining power over all teaching assistants would violate the First Amendment freedom of association rights of dissenting teaching assistants, thereby undermining academic freedom.

“UAW officials’ strong-handed attempt to corral graduate students into unwanted union affiliation and force them to pay dues for unwanted union ‘representation’ can only be explained as that the UAW union bosses see the Board’s current makeup favorable to forced unionism,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case shows that union officials will stop at nothing to collect forced dues — from government employees to private-sector workers and even graduate students.”

Los Angeles, CA (July 26, 2011) – With the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Granada Hills clerk has filed unfair labor practice charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770 union. The charges state that union officials misled him into joining the union and paying full dues.

Jordan Rosenfield, an employee at Ralph’s Grocery Company, is subject to a monopoly bargaining agreement between his employer and UFCW Local 770 union officials, which means he can be forced to pay union dues and accept UFCW “representation” as a condition of employment.

However, no employee can be lawfully forced to join a union as a condition of employment. Moreover, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion employees must be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as members-only events and political activism.

Despite this precedent, Rosenfield was told that he had to join the union and pay full union dues after taking a job with Ralph’s in late May. On June 30, UFCW officials sent Rosenfield a letter threatening to have him fired if he refused to pay an initiation fee, a reinstatement fee, and two months worth of union dues immediately.

Rosenfield’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency charged with administering private sector labor law.

“Unscrupulous UFCW bosses misled a 21-year old clerk into thinking he had to join up and pay full dues just to make a living,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we hope the NLRB will quickly put an end to this deceitful practice, the only way to protect workers’ rights it to make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, which is why California needs a Right to Work law.”

Springfield, VA (July 25, 2011) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today that Geoffrey MacLeay, formerly of Longwood, Florida, has joined its legal staff.
MacLeay is a member of the Florida state bar and a 2007 graduate of the Emory University School of Law.

“Geoffrey MacLeay brings a real commitment to defending employee rights against the ongoing threat of compulsory unionism,” said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“Geoff is already helping to further develop the Foundation’s litigation program to counter organized labor’s well-funded attack on individual worker rights – from its coercive ‘card check’ organizing campaigns to the misuse of employees’ compulsory dues for politics.”

As the newest addition to the Right to Work legal team, MacLeay will help build on the Foundation’s record of litigation against compulsory unionism, which includes several precedent-setting cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys currently represent thousands of employees in nearly 200 active cases nationwide.

Before joining the Foundation, MacLeay worked for a public relations firm in Alexandria, Virginia, where he dealt with union issues, among others. Prior to that, he worked at the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, also in Alexandria.

After graduating from law school, MacLeay practiced law with a firm in Winter Park, Florida. He received a bachelor’s degree in history and political science from Tulane University in 2004.

Madison, WI (July 19, 2011) – With the help of attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, three Wisconsin civil servants have moved to intervene in a union lawsuit against Governor Scott Walker. The lawsuit, filed by lawyers from the AFL-CIO and Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) union, challenges a recently-enacted law that would free public employees from paying union dues just to get or keep their jobs.

Foundation and Institute attorneys filed the motion today in United States District Court for Kristi Lacroix, a Wisconsin teacher at the LakeView Technology Academy, Nathan Berish, a teacher at Waukesha West High School, and Ricardo Cruz, a trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds.

Although Lacroix, Berish, and Cruz are not union members, their workplaces are subject to union monopoly bargaining, which means all three employees have been forced to pay union dues and accept union “representation” to keep their jobs.

Prior to the enactment of Wisconsin Act 10, the law union officials are challenging in court, Wisconsin civil servants could be forced to pay union dues and accept union workplace bargaining as a condition of employment. The new law, signed by Governor Walker, would prevent public sector union officials from collecting any money from nonunion workers, restrict union monopoly bargaining to the issue of employee wages, and end the use of taxpayer funded payroll systems for the collection of union dues.

Lacroix, Berish, and Cruz state that union officials are infringing on their freedom of association by forcing them to associate with and contribute money to organizations they have no interest in joining. They believe that their intervention is necessary to give voice to like-minded public employees while the lawsuit is being decided.

If granted, the employees’ motion to intervene would make them full participants in the lawsuit. LaCroix has already filed an amicus curiae brief opposing union lawyers’ attempt to block the law from going into effect.

“Many independent-minded civil servants have no interest in associating with or paying dues to public sector unions, and they deserve to have their voices heard because their rights are at stake in this case,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope these civil servants will be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that has far-reaching implications for all Wisconsin public employees.”

Washington, DC (July 6, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law, has ruled against a Teamsters workplace policy that discriminated against nonunion workers. Kirk Rammage, the victim of union officials’ discriminatory practices, received free assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation during his extended legal battle.

Although the NLRB previously decided the case in Rammage’s favor in 2009, that ruling was later nullified by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Board lacked a three member quorum at the time of the decision.

Rammage, an Interstate Bakeries employee from Ponca City, Oklahoma, was involved in the consolidation of two separate corporate divisions in 2005. Part of one division was staffed by a single nonunion sales representative – Rammage – who had put in more time with Interstate Bakeries than any of his coworkers at the office where he worked. Although the company wanted to retain Rammage and protect his seniority during the merger, union bosses from Teamsters Local 523 demanded that union members receive preferential treatment, putting Rammage at the bottom of the seniority roster despite his workplace tenure.

At Interstate Bakeries, seniority increases employees’ chances of securing desirable sales routes and getting more time off. By insisting that Rammage lose his seniority, Teamster officials effectively signaled that union workers took priority over their nonunion colleagues.

After revisiting the facts of the case, the NLRB again concluded that Teamster officials broke the law by discriminating against employees based on their union representation status. However, the Obama Board’s new decision outlines a way for union officials to get around the National Labor Relations Act’s anti-discrimination provisions, indicating that union officials could have lawfully ignored Rammage’s tenure if they had claimed it was because he had no preexisting, enforceable seniority instead of saying it was because he wasn’t previously subject to union monopoly bargaining.

“Teamster bosses discriminated against a nonunion worker because he had the temerity not to associate with their union,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we’re pleased to report that the Board has finally gotten around to reaffirming Kirk Rammage’s rights, the Obama NLRB still managed to show its pro-compulsory unionism bias by taking the opportunity to provide union bosses with a roadmap for ‘legally’ discriminating against non-union employees in similar situations in the future.”

Seattle, Washington (July 5, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency responsible for administering private sector labor law, has found merit to charges filed by two Virginia Mason Medical Center nurses against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) union. The charges, which were filed for the nurses by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, state that WSNA officials automatically enrolled nurses in the union without their consent and forced them to pay full union dues.

By finding merit to the charges, the National Labor Relations Board has signaled that WSNA officials must enter into a unit-wide settlement that protects nurses’ rights or face prosecution. The NLRB also agrees that a provision in the union’s contract limiting nurses’ right to resign is unlawful.

Therese Mollerus-Gale still works at Virginia Mason Medical Center while Maureen Lenahan has since resigned her position to accompany her husband to his next military posting. Because Washington lacks a Right to Work law, employees like Lenahan and Mollerus-Gale can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion employees cannot be charged for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as members-only events and political activism.

Meanwhile, another nurse has stepped forward to file new unfair labor practice charges against the WSNA union. According to Amber Finn, who also works at Virginia Mason, WSNA officials ignored her letter requesting nonmember status, enrolled her as a union member without her consent, and threatened to have her fired for refusing to pay full dues.

WSNA officials also resorted to frivolous procedural tactics to prevent Finn from leaving the union, ignoring her resignation letter because she didn’t submit it via certified mail. Moreover, WSNA officials failed to provide nurses with an independently-audited breakdown of union expenditures, which is required by law to help nonunion employees determine what dues they have to pay as a condition of keeping their jobs.

The NLRB will now investigate Finn’s charges against the union.

“Hard-working nurses shouldn’t be pushed into union ranks and forced to pay tribute to WSNA bosses just to keep their jobs,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Nobody should have to pay union dues or join a union just to make a living, which is why Washington needs to make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary by passing a Right to Work law immediately.”