Hartford, Connecticut (July 24, 2008) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are filing a state court lawsuit on behalf of a Connecticut resident who suffered from an ugly campaign of retaliation at the hands of area union officials. The suit alleges that union militants conspired to commit fraud and identity theft in order to bombard Patricia Pelletier with hundreds of mail-order magazines, violating her rights and sticking her with thousands of dollars in subscription and mail order fees.

Because Connecticut lacks a Right to Work law, Pelletier was forced to pay dues to the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1103, as well as accept the union’s workplace representation as a condition of employment. After becoming dissatisfied with the union’s presence, Pelletier initiated a decertification petition to eject the CWA from the workplace. In retaliation, CWA officials apparently conspired to forge Pelletier’s signature on numerous magazine subscriptions. Union militants are also accused of committing identity theft by illegally soliciting business information cards and signing up for advertiser information packages under Pelletier’s name.

These actions resulted in a flood of unwanted magazines and advertisements arriving daily at Pelletier’s doorstep. Not only was Pelletier forced to spend several hours each day canceling individual subscriptions, she was also billed for thousands of dollars by unwitting magazine companies, jeopardizing her credit rating. Pelletier still receives excess mail from a variety of journals and magazines, and her name continues to be circulated through advertiser mailing lists across the country.

In the 31-count suit to be filed today in Hartford Superior Court, Foundation staff attorneys allege that union officials committed identity theft, conspired to forge Pelletier’s signature, inflicted undue emotional distress on Pelletier and her family, and violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practice Act by unlawfully retaliating against Pelletier for attempting to remove the union from her workplace. Foundation attorneys are now seeking damages in excess of $15,000 to compensate Pelletier for CWA union militants’ campaign of retaliation against her.

“Mrs. Pelletier’s plight demonstrates the vicious things union officials will do to punish workers who would rather do without a union,’” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mrs. Pelletier is guilty of nothing more than helping her coworkers give an unwanted union the boot. And the union bosses’ vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation revealed their true nature.”

Washington, DC (July 17, 2008) – The National Right to Work Foundation has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice open investigations into a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its recent convention.

After reviewing a new amendment to the SEIU constitution, Foundation staff attorneys have concluded that the union and its officers may be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets.

“SEIU bosses are making a mockery of federal law. It’s vital the Department of Justice and Department of Labor take action now before the damage is done,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Elections are a cornerstone of our democratic republic, and we need to do everything possible to ensure the results aren’t tainted by unlawful union activism that violates the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

Article XV, Section 18 of the union’s constitution now authorizes the SEIU’s national brass to fine local unions for failure to meet its annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligations. SEIU COPE is the union’s federal PAC, and the FEC lists it as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006.

However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.

The new amendment also appears to allow local affiliates to use nonmember employees’ mandatory dues payments to cover PAC contributions and the SEIU’s fines. While imposition of financial penalties for failure to make political contributions is illegal regardless of how those fines are spent, the use of funds derived from nonmembers’ fees for political purposes also violates those employees’ constitutional rights.

Union officials have devoted enormous sums of money to influence the upcoming fall elections. Because the SEIU’s political contributions are so significant, Foundation attorneys believe that this amendment has the potential to irreparably compromise the integrity of the electoral process. By coercing local affiliates and nonmember employees into contributing to the SEIU’s massive general election fund, union officials threaten to disenfranchise voters with a firestorm of illegally funded political activism.

In the letter to Attorney General Mukasey, Mix writes for the Foundation: “Not only are large numbers of employees (forced to fill SEIU coffers) harmed by this crime, but, given the close vote in recent national elections, the illegal SEIU activity effectively disenfranchises voters who follow the law… To protect the rights of workers forced to pay compulsory dues and fees, and the integrity of the November elections, I trust you will act upon this information…”

### 

Download the letters to the DOL and DOJ (pdf)

Washington, DC (July 15, 2008) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed arguments with the United States Supreme Court seeking a reaffirmation of a lower court ruling that disallowed deals between union officials and employers to undercut employees’ statutory rights.

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 14 Penn Plaza LLC and Temco Service Industries, Inc. v. Steven Pyett, Thomas O’Connell, and Michael Phillips, a case which could have far-reaching implications for employees laboring under union monopoly bargaining contracts.

Pyett, O’Connell, and Phillips sued in federal District Court alleging that their employer had illegally discriminated against them on the basis of age, in violation of federal, New York state, and New York City civil rights statutes. The defendants argued unsuccessfully that the employees, as union members, had waived their right to a judicial forum for their statutory discrimination claims and sought to compel them into arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement. Citing a line of case law dating back to 1974, the District Court ruled that union-negotiated waivers of statutory rights in collective bargaining agreements are unenforceable, and thus the employees retained the right to a judicial forum. The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on appeal.

In its brief, the Foundation explains that the regime of union monopoly bargaining – under which a union is installed as the exclusive representative of all employees in negotiations with their employer, even those who don’t want the union’s “representation” – cannot be construed to even further trump individual rights. For an individual’s right to a judicial forum to be waived in an employment contract, it must be done voluntarily. In a collective bargaining agreement, however, workers do not necessarily consent to waive their judicial forum rights, even if the contract claims that they do. For example, union officials may negotiate the arbitration clause with the employer, but they are not required to put the contract to a vote or disclose all its terms.

Even if the union membership votes to approve the contract and arbitration clause, members who chose not to vote or voted against ratification cannot be said to have voluntarily waived their rights. Furthermore, employees who started working for the employer after the contract was ratified never voted for it. Most important, employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership almost never are allowed to vote on labor contracts.

“We hope the Court will not permit further expansion of monopoly bargaining privileges given to union officials,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case also concerns Big Labor’s national organizing strategy. Union officials want the ability to offer employers immunity from litigation over employees’ statutory rights if an employer will just recognize the union.”

###

The Foundation’s amicus brief can be downloaded here.

Banning, California (July 11, 2008) – In response to objections filed by workers represented by the National Right to Work Foundation alleging union misconduct during a recent decertification election at Coastline Manufacturing, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local 636 union officials decided to save face rather than go through an embarrassing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearing. Instead, they agreed to a new election to determine whether the union will retain its monopoly bargaining privileges.

After union officials unlawfully tampered with employees’ efforts to prove a majority didn’t want union representation, workers contacted the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal assistance. Employees at the glass manufacturing company then sought a union decertification election supervised by the NLRB to formally toss the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades local out of their workplace.

On May 19, a majority of workers voted to retain union representation, but the results were marred by union threats, intimidation, and other irregularities. Foundation staff attorneys filed official objections with the NLRB’s Regional Director, citing five union violations of federal labor election guidelines and asking for a new decertification election so that employees could freely express their preferences.

Workers reported that the union illegally tainted the election by installing a union official as a supposedly “neutral” election observer, threatening employees with financial penalties and employer confiscation of pension funds in the event of decertification, menacing workers with suggestions of lay-offs if the union were to be ejected, and threatening employees with disclosure of family members’ immigration status.

The NLRB Regional Director granted a hearing to resolve employees’ objections, but union officials apparently recognized the likelihood of an embarrassing loss and, at the 11th hour, decided to withdraw from the proceedings and instead agree to another federally-supervised decertification election.

“Union officials’ willingness to intimidate the very employees they are supposed to represent irreparably compromised the integrity of the decertification election,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union’s decision not to contest the workers’ charges clearly demonstrates the process was fatally flawed. We can only hope that this next election will fairly reflect employees’ preferences.”

Sedro-Woolley, Washington (July 10, 2008) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, two construction workers have filed unfair labor practice charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302 union for exorbitant and illegal $16,000 fines levied against them in an internal union kangaroo court – even though the workers were allegedly never voluntary union members.

Shane Davis and Chad Aldridge filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against IUOE Local 302 after union bosses declared them “guilty” of refusing to give up employment at TriMaxx Construction, a contractor whose employees had voted against unionization. Late last year, union bosses learned that Davis and Aldridge were earning paychecks from the nonunion firm and demanded that they quit their jobs. In February, after Davis and Aldridge refused to put themselves in the unemployment line and resigned from the union, the union hierarchy held its “trial” and levied the confiscatory fines of $16,728.40 each.

In NLRB v. General Motors (1963) and Communications Workers v. Beck (1988), the United States Supreme Court ruled that unions may force workers to pay certain fees as a condition of employment, but workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership. Employees who exercise the right to refrain from union membership cannot be subjected to internal union discipline. Unions have an obligation to tell workers about their General Motors and Beck rights, which Local 302 never did.

Davis and Aldridge claim that as involuntary members, they cannot be lawfully subjected to internal union discipline. They also claim that union officials would not have imposed such severe fines had they not resigned from union “membership.” It is illegal for unions to fine workers as retaliation for resigning.

“Criminals convicted of misdemeanors in the state of Washington can be socked with $5,000 fines,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is unconscionable that Local 302 union bosses would slam Shane Davis and Chad Aldridge with fines greater than three times that amount just for trying to earn an honest living.”

The NLRB Regional Office in Seattle will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union before an administrative law judge.

Sacramento, California (July 3, 2008) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees at the USF Reddaway trucking company recently voted to eject the Chauffeur Teamsters and Helpers Local 150 union from their workplace. The Teamsters pushed their way into the facility in December of 2007, when USF Reddaway voluntarily recognized the union without a secret ballot election.

Under the card-check organizing scheme union agents use to demonstrate supposed employee support, employees are denied access to a secret ballot election and are instead forced to publicly declare their support or opposition to unionization during face-to-face confrontations with professional union organizers. Employees report that, during card-check union organizers often harass, mislead, or outright lie to employees to acquire their signatures.

Recognizing the coercive nature of card-check organizing, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled in the Foundation’s Dana/Metaldyne case that employees may initiate a union decertification petition immediately following recognition if a union acquires its monopoly bargaining privileges through card-check. The National Law Journal has described Dana/Metaldyne as one of the “most significant decisions” of the Board in the last four years.

Dissatisfied with the results of the coercive card-check drive, several employees at USF Reddaway took advantage of the Dana decision and immediately circulated a union decertification petition. After a majority of workers signed the petition, Teamsters officials filed so-called “blocking charges” to short-circuit employees’ wishes.

Foundation attorneys responded by filing unfair labor practice charges on behalf of several USF Reddaway employees. The charges cited the suspicious circumstances surrounding the union’s original card-check drive, alleging that the union did not enjoy the majority support of employees. To resolve this legal impasse, both sides agreed to withdraw their charges in favor of an NLRB-supervised election to determine whether workers supported unionization. On June 16 and 17, over 60 percent of USF Reddaway employees voted against union representation, finally expelling the unwanted Teamsters from the workplace.

“While we applaud the employees’ resolve in obtaining their decertification election, this incident highlights the controversial nature of card-check organizing,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Allowing union activists to pressure workers into signing authorization cards is an inherently unfair process that not only subjects vulnerable employees to bullying and harassment, but it also imposes a union on them that they often do not want.”

Los Angeles, California (July 3, 2008) – Federal labor board officials in Los Angeles will prosecute the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 121RN for illegally threatening nurses at the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center with financial penalties and arrest for refusing to abandon their patients during a union-ordered strike.

Last October, SEIU officials ordered a general strike after the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the hospital expired, but many nurses refused to abandon their patients. To continue treating patients during the union-ordered strike without union retaliation, the nurses resigned from formal union membership. However, union bosses – citing an unenforceable California state law deterring “strikebreakers” (i.e. dutiful employees) – told the nurses that they could face stiff fines and even up to 90 days in jail if they did not join the strike. With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, nurse Carole Jean Badertscher filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

When the NLRB Regional Director originally declined to prosecute the law-breaking SEIU bosses, Foundation attorneys filed an appeal with the NLRB’s General Counsel. The General Counsel determined that the Regional Director improperly dropped the case and ordered issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint against the abusive union hierarchy.

According to the complaint, union bosses illegally threatened nurses with arrest and jail under the invalid California law that is preempted by federal labor law. Additionally, the complaint alleges that union officials misled nurses by suggesting that non-member employees would continue to owe compulsory union dues even though no contract containing a valid forced-dues clause was in effect.

“Rather than being properly commended for refusing to turn their backs on their patients, these brave nurses faced ugly threats of fines and imprisonment from union bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is reprehensible that union bosses are illegally threatening nurses in an effort to get them to walk out on their patients.”

Los Angeles, California (July 2, 2008) – Federal labor prosecutors in Los Angeles have issued a class-action complaint against union officials for failing to provide Paramount Classics film crew members with proper financial disclosure of their forced union dues.

In July 2006, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Jasionowski filed an unfair labor practice charge on behalf of similarly situated employees with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Script Supervisors/Continuity & Allied Production Specialists Guild, Local 871. The NLRB Regional Director has agreed with Jasionowski’s charges and will prosecute the case before an administrative law judge in Los Angeles.

Though not a union member, Jasionowski is forced to pay union fees as a condition of her employment. However, she exercised her limited right to object to the collection of forced dues spent for any purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance administration. In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988) decision, the United States Supreme Court held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may withhold the portion of union fees which funds activities like union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

Under legal precedents won by Foundation attorneys, all non-union members must be provided with a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor. Additionally, a nonmember may challenge the amount of the fee imposed by union officials.

In late May 2006, Jasionowski notified Local 871 – an affiliate of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IASTE) – that she objected to the payment of forced fees for non-bargaining activities. Union officials, however, failed to provide an adequate breakdown of the union’s expenditures, particularly payments to IASTE and other union affiliates that are also involved in political and other non-bargaining activity.

“Perhaps more than in any other profession, union officials in the entertainment business seem to think they are above the law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mary Jasionowski – or any other employee – should not be forced to support the political agenda of a union she never wanted to ‘represent’ her in the first place.”

Anchorage, Alaska (June 20, 2008) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an Alaska state employee has reached a favorable settlement with union officials and state administrators who threatened his termination after he asserted his right to resign from union membership. When Robert Hunsick informed officials from Alaska State Employees Association, Local 52 (ASEA) of his decision to resign from the union, union brass improperly demanded that he continue to pay full union dues or be fired.

Hunsick filed suit in United States District Court on May 19, causing ASEA lawyers to scramble to avoid a costly and embarrassing court battle with Foundation attorneys. ASEA union officials were unlawfully seizing and spending a portion of his forced dues for political and ideological purposes.

In the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously established due process safeguards to ensure that employees are not compelled to subsidize union activities beyond what union officials can prove is spent on collective bargaining. Hunsick resigned his formal union membership and asked ASEA officials to provide him a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor. Hudson also requires that union officials provide the employee who chooses to refrain from union membership an opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee.

But ASEA union boss Jim Duncan told Hunsick that he could only resign his formal union membership in a union-designated 30-day window every June. Eventually, ASEA officials accepted Hunsick’s resignation, but union officials then still failed to provide him with a proper breakdown of union dues to prove that the amount they demanded was not paying for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics, lobbying or member-only activities.

When Hunsick insisted on such a breakdown, as guaranteed under Hudson, union officials persisted in demanding that he pay up or be fired, a demand they only dropped as part of the settlement. Under the other terms of the settlement, the ASEA agreed to refund Hunsick all fees deducted from his wages, plus interest, from his initial resignation in December and waived its claim for any such fees not paid.

Alaska is one of 28 states without Right to Work protections that ensure employees are not forced to pay any union dues as a condition of employment. Hunsick’s struggle against ASEA demonstrates the chasm between Alaska’s compulsory unionism laws and its tradition of rugged individualism.

“This settlement is a small victory for employee freedom,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But as long as state laws compel workers like Robert Hunsick to support unions against their will, true freedom remains lost in the wilderness.”

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.