Washington, DC (June 19, 2008) – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Chamber v. Brown case in which the Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the ultimate outcome.

“In its Chamber v. Brown decision, the Supreme Court correctly reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold a California law which increases pressure on employees to join unwanted unions.

“The law was nothing more than an underhanded attempt by union officials to use public funds to corral California workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and the High Court was correct to find that the law is pre-empted by federal labor law.

“Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members. Moreover, union organizers would have insisted that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.

“California officials were wrong to use the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies are having trouble persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.”

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that would have effectively forced coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.

### 

The decision can be downloaded here.

Burlington, NC (June 13, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed a lawsuit in North Carolina state court for 16 AT&T employees against Communication Workers of America (CWA) union officials for the illegal release of confidential personal information.

The complaint, filed late Wednesday in Gaston County, alleges widespread union violations of the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act by CWA union officials, who are accused of illegally posting nonunion employees’ personal information – including workers’ social security numbers – in a public area. The plaintiffs were also subjected to an extended union campaign of workplace harassment and intimidation.

Around November of 2007, union officials posted nonmember employees’ personal information. The spreadsheet that contained employees’ personal data was sent via e-mail from union official Judy Brown to other CWA officials with instructions to “. . . forward this information to your affected locals.” CWA officials proceeded to post the spreadsheet on a public bulletin board and likely disseminated the information through e-mail and other means.

By posting the information, union officials left employees vulnerable to identity theft and credit fraud. Foundation attorneys now seek a jury trial for the assessment of statutory and punitive damages.

North Carolina is one of 22 states with Right to Work protections that ensure employees are not forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. At the time the notice was posted, all 16 plaintiffs had exercised their Right to Work and were not formal dues-paying union members. The employees believe their personal information was posted in retaliation for exercising their legal rights, and a recent National Labor Relations Board investigation substantiated these allegations.

The case highlights the fact that, even in Right to Work states, union officials have extraordinary power over nonmember employees who have been forced to accept a union’s “representation.” Union officials are able to dictate nonunion workers’ terms of employment and have access to employees’ private and confidential information.

“By releasing the personal and confidential information of employees who exercised their legal right, CWA union bosses were trying to send a message that workers who refuse to support the union will face retribution,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

Norfolk, Virginia (June 6, 2008) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, employees at fabric manufacturer Narricot Industries have filed a motion to defend their decision to throw the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Union Local 2316 out of their workplace. After workers overwhelmingly supported decertification, union officials moved to block the employees’ wishes.

Prior to filing a decertification petition, only one quarter of employees in the collective bargaining unit were dues-paying members of the unpopular union, the majority having exercised their rights under Virginia’s Right to Work law to opt out of union dues.  And 64 percent of employees signed a petition to remove the union as their collective bargaining agent.

In an effort to undo the employees’ decision, Carpenters union lawyers filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  Under federal labor law, Carpenters union officials would have to prove that any unfair labor practices committed by the employer incited employees to support decertification. Because employee discontent with union representation predates union officials’ accusations against Narricot, the Carpenters union’s attempt to nullify the decertification petition is unlikely to succeed.

Unfortunately, the NLRB General Counsel moved for a court order that forces employees back into the union for as long as the union’s charge is under consideration. If such an injunction is granted, the Carpenters union will regain its monopoly control of workplace representation until the Board rules upon the validity of the unfair labor practice charges, regardless of the employees’ desires to be free of union representation.

To stop workers from being forced back into union ranks, employees represented by Foundation attorneys filed a motion to participate in the injunction hearing. Foundation attorneys contend that employees freely chose to leave the union, and that it would be unfair to force them back into the union against their will.

“It is abundantly clear that the company’s actions had nothing to do with widespread employee dissatisfaction with the union,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should respect workers’ clear desire to remove the union.”

Cleveland, Ohio (June 4, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an official complaint against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4309 union officials in response to charges filed by the National Right to Work Foundation on behalf of an AT&T employee.

CWA Local 4309 union officials are accused of committing unfair labor practices by requiring nonunion employees to annually object to mandatory dues payments unrelated to collective bargaining. An NLRB administrative law judge will rule on the federal complaint.

Under the Foundation-won precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees can be required to pay union dues germane to collective bargaining. But employees who object to paying full union dues have the right to withhold funds attributable to other union activities such as politics, lobbying, or member-only activities. Employees are also entitled to an audited financial breakdown of all union expenditures.

CWA Local 4309 union bosses required nonmember employees to annually object to making full dues payments within a short window period, despite the fact that these employees had already signaled their unwillingness to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining by refusing to join the union. Federal labor prosecutors agreed that the annual objection requirement represents an unnecessary burden that frequently results in nonunion workers paying more than they owe.

The case is one of many in which National Right to Work attorneys have helped employees challenge union policies that require workers to annually object to paying for nonrepresentational activities. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, workers have successfully challenged both the International Association of Machinists’ (IAM) and the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) annual objection policies.

“Union bosses exploit these illegal annual objection requirements to seize even more compulsory union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates the injustices workers face every day under forced unionism.”

Atlantic City, NJ (June 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.

The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.

The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.

In addition to filing a brief supporting Trump Plaza’s request that the Board set aside the election, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed unfair labor practice charges and a House Ethics Committee complaint.

The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charge, which has been held in abeyance pending the appeal regarding certification, points out that Congressman Andrews led an extraordinary public event (which was televised and disseminated by other media) and aided UAW union officials in interfering with the free exercise of employee rights in choosing whether to unionize. “Acting under the false imprimatur of NLRB authority,” Andrews counted union authorization cards that were not necessarily intended by employees to be considered formal votes, and he signed and announced a “Certification of Majority Status” for unionization.

Andrews’s participation, given his position as Chairman of House of Representative’s subcommittee that oversees labor issues, made the union’s televised public announcement of its “certification” particularly problematic. Given his prominent role in the creation of federal labor policy, employees could think that the union had already been formally installed, or that the union’s election was a forgone conclusion. As the Foundation’s brief in the case pointed out, Andrew’s actions likely had the effects of suppressing turnout for the election, and inducing employees to vote for a “pre-certified” union, thus disenfranchising employees and destroying the “laboratory conditions” under which NLRB elections are required to take place.

“The Bush Labor Board has just opened the floodgates. Workers will be faced with union officials’ aggressive use of Members of Congress during coercive union organizing campaigns,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.

###

A copy of the NLRB’s decision can be downloaded here.

The Foundation’s amicus brief to the board can be downloaded here.

Los Angeles, California (May 27, 2008) – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Ronald Meisburg has granted an appeal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for union-abused nurses at the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center. The federal government will now prosecute Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 121 RN union officials for threatening nurses with financial penalties and arrest for refusing to abandon their patients during a union-ordered strike.

In October of 2007, SEIU Local 121 RN officials ordered a general strike after the nurses’ collective bargaining agreement with the hospital expired. In an effort to intimidate nurses into toeing the union line, SEIU officials told nurses that refusal to strike could result in financial penalties or even arrest – citing an unenforceable California state law. Nurse Carole Jeane Badertscher, a non-union member, subsequently contacted the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal assistance and filed class action unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB Regional Director.

After the NLRB Regional Director declined to prosecute, Foundation attorneys filed an appeal with the NLRB’s General Counsel. Following a lengthy review process, the General Counsel found merit to the charges, determined that union officials violated the nurses’ legal rights.

An NLRB administrative law judge will now evaluate Ms. Badertscher’s twin charges: The first alleges SEIU union officials misled nurses by suggesting that nonunion employees would continue to owe compulsory union dues after the nurses’ collective bargaining agreement expired. The second alleges that SEIU officials illegally threatened nurses for refusing to participate in a union-ordered strike.

“It’s outrageous for union officials to suggest that nurses could be financially penalized or even sent to jail for continuing to care for their patients,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we’re pleased that SEIU bosses will be prosecuted for breaking the law, this type of abuse will continue until California employees have the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues-payment strictly voluntary.”

Valparaiso, IN (April 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 for threatening to get a worker fired for refusing union membership. The agency issued the complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges filed by the employee with help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Minteq International, Inc. employee Joel Tibbetts originally filed federal charges against the IUOE Local 150 on October 1, 2007. Aside from threatening Tibbetts’ job, union officials are also accused of failing to notify him of his rights to refrain from full union membership, to provide him with an audit of the union’s financial expenditures, and allow him to withhold forced dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

Tibbetts, a steel mill worker at Minteq, turned to the National Right to Work Foundation for help after union officials repeatedly threatened to have him fired for refusing to join the IUOE. When Tibbetts finally agreed to join the union under protest out of fear of losing his livelihood, union officials refused his application and told him that he would actually have to pay even more in compulsory dues than his co-workers who were union members.

IUOE officials unlawfully told Tibbetts that union members’ fees are calculated on an individual basis, whereas nonmember’s fees are based on so-called “representation” costs, which somehow made the forced dues demanded of him higher than dues paid by formal union members.

“IUOE union officials have repeatedly run roughshod over the rights of workers in Indiana,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Until the Hoosier State passes a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, employees statewide will continue to face this thuggishness.”

However, under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, union officials cannot require formal union membership or the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining as a condition of employment. The decision also requires union officials to provide verified financial disclosure of union expenditures, a provision that allows employees to refuse to pay for activities unrelated to workplace representation. Retaliation or discrimination against employees for exercising these rights is also illegal.

The NLRB has scheduled a June 17, 2008 hearing to prosecute the union at the NLRB Regional Office 25 in Indianapolis.

Washington, DC (March 31, 2008) – Today the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case of Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, thus agreeing to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that limited the applicability of an Idaho state law banning payroll deductions for union Political Action Committees (PACs).

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Sutherland Institute, and Utah Taxpayers Association filed a joint amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal filed by the Attorney General for the State of Idaho.

The lower U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling argued that the payroll deduction ban should only apply to union payroll deductions at the state government level, and that local government bodies were independent political entities outside of the reach the state law.

But the joint amici brief pointed out that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit wrongly forces Idaho taxpayers to subsidize union political activities by offering valuable payroll deduction services to union officials.

Even more alarmingly, union lawyers could try to use the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning to launch fresh new attacks on state Right to Work laws as applied to local government bodies. The joint amici brief emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that unions have no constitutional right to collect union dues from non-union members, much less use payroll deduction privileges to do so.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, National Right to Work Vice President Stefan Gleason made the following remarks:

“We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to revisit the activist ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just like state governments, local governments should not act as bagmen for union political funds.

“Stripping union officials of their payroll deduction privileges is good public policy. In fact, the State of Idaho should have gone much further than it did – by banning outright the use of public facilities to collect any union funds whatsoever.”

Download the decision here.

Sacramento, California (March 31, 2008) – A federal judge has ordered California State Employees Association (CSEA) union officials to offer rebates to up to 28,000 state employees who are not union members. Imposing a “special assessment” in addition to mandatory dues, union officials seized an additional 25% of forced union dues to wage their campaign against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s modest reform measures on the 2005 ballot.

The ruling stems from a class-action civil rights complaint, filed by nine state government employees (union members and nonmembers) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The complaint sought a ruling that would require union officials to give employees due process, including proper financial disclosure, a formal notice that they may reclaim the special assessment spent for electioneering, and rebates, plus interest, to all who request them.

CSEA union officials had imposed on government employees a so-called “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund” for a broad range of political activities. Union officials openly admitted that the “Fund will not be used for regular costs of the union,” but for political advertising, direct mail, and get-out-the-vote activities.

By levying this mid-year “special assessment,” CSEA officials illegally jacked up and spent employees’ mandatory payments by between 25-36% without even allowing those employees who were not union members to opt out of paying for such activities. Union officials raised over $12 million through the special assessment and spent many millions more using regular dues. Approximately $3 million of this was taken from nonmembers.

Morrison C. England Jr., a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of California, noted that “a contrary decision from the one reached today would allow unions to run roughshod over dissenting nonmembers…”
CSEA union officials must now provide the nonunion state employees with a financial disclosure, notice that they may object to the use of these forced union dues for political activities, and refunds to all who object in response to the new disclosure.

“Although this is an encouraging victory for these employees, this ruling underscores the gross injustice of forced unionism that exists in California,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Only a Right to Work law banning forced union dues altogether will give Golden State employees meaningful protection from similar abuses of their constitutional rights.”

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the High Court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified of how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political activities. However, CSEA union officials did not give public employees any opportunity to object to the special assessment.

Washington, DC (March 28, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed its opposition to a package of sweeping rule changes proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucracy that would further undermine the right of American workers to choose freely whether to form a union. The Foundation filed its comments on behalf of itself and three employees victimized by coercive “card check” unionization drives in California, Ohio, and South Carolina, respectively.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap union certification election even when no employees have expressed any interest in unionization. The proposed changes would toss aside traditional NLRB certification safeguards while effectively barring employees from challenging any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubberstamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

The proposed NLRB rules also appear to contradict the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally shortening the statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges from six months to seven days. The proposed rules would also unlawfully leave employee allegations of misconduct to the unappealable discretion of NLRB Regional Directors, cutting the Board and appellate courts out of the process.

“The NLRB’s devious proposal would ‘rent out’ federal oversight of representation elections to union officials and certain employers who have caved in to extortionate pressure campaigns intended to induce them to hand over their employees to forced unionism,” stated Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should not further erode employees’ freedom to resist unwanted unionization, nor should it so crassly provide a veneer of legitimacy to coercive and often illegal union organizing tactics.”

The Foundation’s comments cite that the proposed changes would rapidly accelerate a trend of coercive “top down” union organizing drives. Such drives often include “corporate campaigns” where a non-union company is targeted with ugly PR onslaughts, trumped up lawsuits, and political pressure.

“In short, the proposed rules must be viewed in the context of union efforts to destroy both the full and open debate inherent in… the NLRA-established secret ballot election process, and replace them with “neutrality agreements,” forced employer silence, non-existent election campaigns, employees’ inability to object or organize a movement to oppose unionization, and union selection via either “card check” or rapid-fire consent elections,” wrote Foundation staff attorneys Glenn Taubman and Bill Messenger.