New Jersey Teachers File Class Action Lawsuit against Teacher Union for Violating Rights under Supreme Court’s Janus Decision
Class action lawsuit challenges a NJ law that blocks workers from exercising First Amendment rights outside 10 day “window period”
Trenton, New Jersey (November 5, 2018) – Two New Jersey public school teachers have filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Township of Ocean Education Association (TOEA), New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) unions, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Teachers Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck, for themselves and potentially thousands of other teachers across the state, are asking the U.S. District Court for New Jersey to order NJEA union officials to refund illegally-seized union dues taken from teachers without their consent and in violation of their First Amendment rights as protected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME.
In Janus, which was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the High Court ruled it unconstitutional to require public employees to subsidize a labor union. The Court further held that any union dues or fees taken without a public employee’s affirmative consent violates the employee’s First Amendment rights.
As the complaint details, union officials refused to allow Fischer and Speck to stop payment of union dues when they resigned their membership in July 2018. Township officials said the teachers could only stop payments and withdraw their membership during an annual 10-day window period based on a newly passed New Jersey state law.
In May, New Jersey legislators enacted a law to limit workers from exercising their rights under Janus except during the annual 10-day window. At the time Janus was pending a decision at the Supreme Court. The teachers’ class action suit argues that the New Jersey law is unconstitutional and must be struck down.
The teachers also seek a refund of membership dues forcibly taken after they resigned their union membership, as well as for all other public employees who attempted to resign following Janus. The lawsuit is similar to several other cases around the country pursued by public employees with assistance from Foundation staff attorneys following the Janus ruling.
For example, in two ongoing lawsuits, Pennsylvania school bus driver Michael Mayer and California court worker Mark Smith each filed federal complaints after union officials blocked their attempts to exercise their rights under Janus.
“Contrary to the wishes of New Jersey union bosses and their allies in the state legislature, First Amendments rights cannot be limited to just 10 days out of the year,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The Foundation-won Janus decision at the Supreme Court recognized that all civil servants may exercise their rights to free speech and free association by resigning their union membership and cutting off union payments whenever they choose. Despite the ongoing resistance by union officials to the rights of the workers they claim to represent, Foundation staff attorneys remain committed to enforcing the constitutional rights of Susan, Jeanette, and millions of other public sector workers guaranteed by Janus.”
To inform workers of their legal rights under Janus, and ensure they know they can turn to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal aid if union officials attempt to obstruct them from exercising those rights, the Foundation launched a special website: MyJanusRights.org.
Homecare Provider Files Class Action Lawsuit to Stop SEIU’s Unconstitutional Collection of Union Dues
SEIU officials’ “window period” policy traps provider into supporting union after unsolicited telemarketer pressured provider into forced dues
Sacramento, CA (November 2, 2018) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a class action complaint challenging a union scheme to violate the rights of California homecare providers. The complaint challenges union officials’ “window period” policy that blocks the provider from exercising her constitutional right to refrain from financially supporting a union, despite the fact that she only became a member under pressure during an unsolicited phone conversation.
Delores Polk, who provides home healthcare to her daughter, is not a voluntary member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. However, an SEIU telemarketer called her and read Polk the terms of the local union’s membership and dues deduction authorization. Pressured by the unsolicited phone call, Polk reluctantly agreed to join.
Polk notes in her complaint that she was not notified of her First Amendment rights, protected by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME, to refrain from joining or subsidizing SEIU Local 2015 and did not sign any written documentation agreeing to be a union member or waiving her First Amendment rights.
Days after the phone call, Polk researched SEIU Local 2015 and realized she did not want to financially support the organization, as doing so does not reflect her values and also for financial reasons. Polk called SEIU Local 2015 and told them she did not want to be a union member and did not consent to union dues deductions. However, in a letter sent after her phone call, SEIU officials claimed that Polk had missed the “window period” to cut off payments and could not opt out for another year, and then only through written notice.
Despite her lack of consent, the California State Controller, at the behest of SEIU Local 2015, continues to deduct union dues from the Medicaid funds Polk receives to care for her daughter. The State Controller and SEIU Local 2015 officials also continue to enforce their “window period” policy against other providers.
Polk came to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid in filing her class action complaint against SEIU Local 2015 and the State Controller of California. Polk’s charges allege that the “window period” policy violates her constitutional right to refrain from paying union dues or fees.
Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn decision, Polk and homecare providers across the country cannot be forced to pay union fees without their consent. The 2014 ruling declared unconstitutional an Illinois scheme that classified individual homecare providers as “public employees” so they could be unionized by the SEIU and forced to pay union dues. Furthermore, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court affirmed that it is unconstitutional for union dues and fees to be collected without an individual’s affirmative consent and clear, knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights.
The complaint requests that the court certify a class including all home healthcare providers who have been forced to pay union dues even after notifying the State Controller or SEIU Local 2015 officials that they do not consent to financially supporting the union.
“Ms. Polk’s case shows that union officials will ignore the clear wishes of the workers they claim to ‘represent’ simply to line their pockets with coerced fees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials have a long history of manipulating ‘window period’ rules, arbitrary union-enacted limitations on ending dues payments, and other obstacles designed to block individuals from exercising their constitutional rights. Although the Foundation’s victories in Harris and Janus provide important protections, a clear ruling is needed to put an end to these union bosses’ abusive practices.”
WMATA Exec, Metro Unions Warned: Stop Violating Workers’ First Amendment Rights Protected by Janus Supreme Court Decision
National Right to Work Foundation letter says WMATA could face civil rights lawsuits if it doesn’t stop seizing union fees from workers who don’t consent
Washington, DC (October 30, 2018) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation sent a letter to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority warning WMATA against failing to comply with the legal protections for public workers under the U.S. Supreme Court’s June Janus v. AFSCME decision.
The Janus case was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. In June the Supreme Court held that mandatory union fees violate the constitutional rights of public employees and ruled that it violates the First Amendment when any union fees are taken from public employees who have not given affirmative consent to such deductions.
However, Foundation staff attorneys have received reports that WMATA continues to deduct union dues or fees from the wages of employees who do not consent to those deductions. The Foundation letter urges WMATA General Manager and CEO Paul Wiedefeld to immediately stop deducting union fees from the wages of all such employees.
The letter notes that any deduction authorization signed prior to Janus does not constitute legal waiver of a workers’ constitutional right to not pay. If WMATA does not comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the letter explains that “Foundation staff attorneys will bring a civil rights action seeking class-wide injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees for any injured employees who request their assistance.”
Copies of the letter were also sent to Teamsters Local 639 and ATU Local 689, who may be receiving forced fees collected in violation of the rights of WMATA employees.
“Janus is a landmark victory for workers’ rights, ensuring that while workers can choose to join and financially support a union if they choose, they cannot be forced to fund a union against their will,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, Foundation staff attorneys have been contacted by WMATA employees about violations of their Janus rights, demonstrating that even a mile or two from the Supreme Court a long road remains ahead to ensure public employees’ rights are fully respected.”
“The good news is, workers will always have an ally in the National Right to Work Foundation if they choose to stand up against coercive forced union dues schemes,” continued Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are currently litigating more than fifteen cases seeking to enforce public employees’ rights under the Janus precedent.
The Foundation has also established MyJanusRights.org to inform government employees of their new rights. At the site, public employees can learn about their First Amendment rights and request free legal aid.
Fenway Worker Wins Too: Ballpark Worker Wins Back Pay After Being Illegally Fired for Resigning from Union
Vendor at Fenway Park receives back pay after federal labor charges following his termination for exercising legal right to refrain from union membership
Boston, MA (October 29, 2018) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a service worker at Fenway Park in Boston has secured back pay for lost wages after he was fired for exercising his legal right to resign from formal union membership.
Oscar Milandou is an employee of food service provider Aramark, which is contracted to provide vending services for the Red Sox at Fenway. According to charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Mr. Milandou was fired for resigning from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 32.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employees have the right the refrain from union membership and activities. Although Massachusetts is not a Right to Work state and does not protect employees from being forced to pay union fees to keep their jobs, it is illegal under the NLRA for an employer to discriminate or terminate an employee for exercising his legal right to resign from the union.
As is his legal right, in August, Milandou resigned his union membership with SEIU only to be informed of his termination. Soon after, he reached out for free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys who filed a federal unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB for the wrongful termination due to the illegal forced membership demand.
After the charges were filed, Aramark representatives quickly backed down and reinstated Mr. Milandou’s employment rather than be liable for the wages he lost as a result of an illegal termination. Later, Milandou received nearly $300 in back pay for the two work days he lost before being reinstated.
“In a home run for worker freedom, Mr. Milandou has now received recompense after he was wrongfully fired simply for exercising his legal right to refrain from union membership,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Unfortunately, until Massachusetts passes a Right to Work law making union membership and financial support completely voluntary, we will continue to see workers victimized by greedy union bosses and compliant employers willing to threaten workers for union officials.”
Public Employees Hit Operating Engineers Union with Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Intimidation, Discrimination
Sacramento public employees were target of IUOE union’s request for their emails related to rights to oppose unionization
Sacramento, California (October 18, 2018) – Three employees of the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito & Vector Control District filed unfair labor charges with the California Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) against Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 3 union after a union official used the state’s public records request system to attempt to harass and intimidate the workers for being critical of the union and seeking to exercise their rights.
Ryan Wagner, Brett Day, and Mark Pipkin, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, filed the unfair practice charges after they received notification by their employer that a union official had requested their work email records and other documents under the California Public Records Act.
The Operating Engineers official requested copies of all three employees’ emails with keywords such as “decertification,” “PERB,” “union,” “decertify,” “how to get rid of union,” “Public Employee Relations Board,” and “Meyers Milias Brown Act.” The terms are related to the employees’ legal rights under California law, specifically the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) which covers county and municipal workers, to remove a union that has lost the support of a majority of workers.
Under the MMBA, workers have a right to abstain from formal union membership and participation in union activities. Unions are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public employees because of the exercise of those rights.
The charges filed with PERB state that the union official’s requests violate the workers’ rights under California’s labor law. The three workers each request that, as a remedy for the illegal intimidation, the union be required to post notices to all employees of their right to refrain from union activities under California law, and that the union’s practices violated Wagner, Day, and Pipkin’s legal rights.
Before the June Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, public employees in California could be required to pay union dues or fees, even if they were not union members. After Janus recognized workers’ First Amendment right not to fund union speech, the three workers were free from union forced dues, but still stuck under the union’s monopoly contract and so-called “representation.” A decertification election, about which the union official’s records request sought information, would force the union to prove that it actually has the support of at least a majority of the workers it claims to represent.
“This case shows that union officials will go to any lengths to try to trap workers under a union monopoly they oppose,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Apparently, IUOE union bosses are so fearful of letting workers vote on unionization, that they are willing to harass and attempt to intimidate workers whom they claim to ‘represent.’”
Citing the Janus Supreme Court decision, Michigan civil servants seek refund of dues collected without consent, and an end to union campaign to extract forced fees
Lansing, Michigan (October 18, 2018) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, two Michigan public school employees have filed a class action lawsuit against the Michigan Education Association (MEA) union, an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest government employee union in the country.
Plaintiffs Linda Gervais and Tammy Williams, who both worked for the Port Huron Area School District, are suing the MEA after union officials spent years illegally attempting to obtain membership dues from the two women. The workers’ suit demands that MEA officials stop the harassment, including the use of debt collectors, and refund dues illegally obtained from potentially thousands of other non-member public school employees.
Gervais and Williams exercised their rights by resigning their union memberships in September 2013, approximately nine months after Michigan enacted Right to Work legislation that protects workers from being forced to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. Despite the resignations and the law, MEA officials continued to demand that they pay dues.
As part of the MEA campaign to collect the dues, union agents contacted Gervais and Williams dozens of times demanding hundreds of dollars’ worth of back dues which the women were under no legal obligation to pay. Union agents even threatened to take both women to small claims court for their failure to pay the demanded fees.
MEA officials’ claim to be owed back dues may have been on the grounds that Gervais and Williams missed an arbitrary union “window period” to cut off union payments. However, in a 2014 case brought by Foundation staff attorneys, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) decision striking down that “window period” scheme as illegal under Michigan’s public sector Right to Work law. Gervais and Williams lawsuit applies the protections under the June U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Foundation-won case Janus v. AFSCME.
The landmark Janus decision ruled that a union violates the First Amendment by demanding or coercing public employees to pay union dues or fees without their explicit consent. Citing that ruling, Gervais and Williams’ federal class action lawsuit seeks an end to the unions’ demands, for themselves and other workers who faced, or continue to face, the same demands, along with refunds for all workers who paid the dues MEA agents illegally demanded.
“As the union bosses’ attempt to counteract Michigan’s Right to Work law demonstrates, although union membership and financial support is voluntary under the law, that doesn’t mean Big Labor will obey that law,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Thankfully, armed with the Foundation-won Janus Supreme Court decision, Linda, Tammy, and countless other Michigan educators are a step closer to ending this multi-year campaign of illegal dues demands.”
Since Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed Right to Work legislation into state law in December 2012, Foundation staff attorneys have litigated more than 100 cases in Michigan to combat compulsory unionism. Foundation staff attorneys are also pursuing dozens of other cases across the country since the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus.
Ohio Public Employees File Two Class-Action Lawsuits Against AFSCME Unions to Enforce Janus Supreme Court Decision
Lawsuits seek refunds for forced union dues seized from nonmembers and end to union policy blocking workers from exercising First Amendment rights under Janus
Columbus, Ohio (October 15, 2018) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys are providing free legal aid to public sector workers in Ohio in two class-action lawsuits filed today against Ohio affiliates of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Union (AFSCME) union. One lawsuit aims to end unconstitutional restrictions created by union officials to block workers from exercising their constitutional rights as recognized by the Janus decision, while the other class-action complaint demands the return of forced fees seized in recent years from state employees who were not union members.
The filings are part of a wave of cases brought by Foundation staff attorneys for public employees seeking to enforce their rights under the June Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME. In Janus, which was briefed and argued at the Supreme Court by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the Court ruled that the collection of dues or fees from workers without explicit employee authorization violates workers’ constitutional rights.
In the case seeking refunds of illegally-seized union fees Foundation staff attorneys represent Nathaniel Ogle, an employee of Ohio’s Department of Taxation. The case seeks refunds for Ogle and a class of other state employees who were not union members but nevertheless had forced union fees seized from their paychecks. The case was filed against Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (AFSCME Local 11) union, which has monopoly bargaining power over more than 30,000 Ohio government employees.
In the other class-action lawsuit, Foundation staff attorneys represent Jotham Smith, Adam Scheiner, Brian Parks, Annette Lipsky, Steven Fletcher, Michael Cooper, and Tracey Baird, who are employed by various state and local Ohio government agencies. The workers all resigned their membership from AFSCME Council 8 following the Janus decision, but AFSCME officials have continued deducting dues, citing a union policy restricting revocation of dues deduction to a narrow 15-day window before a new monopoly bargaining contract is enforced. The lawsuit, which is also filed on behalf of other public employees who attempted to resign from the union and exercise their rights under Janus only to be blocked, asks the court to declare AFSCME’s resignation policy unconstitutional and seeks an injunction to stop the union from collecting dues from non-consenting public employees.
“Since the Janus decision was announced in June, Foundation staff attorneys have received a flood of calls from workers wanting to enforce their First Amendment rights,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Unfortunately, rather than allow workers to decide freely whether or not to associate with and financially support a labor union, union bosses coast to coast have instead attempted to block workers from exercising their constitutional rights, making numerous Janus enforcement cases necessary.”
To inform workers of their legal rights under Janus, and ensure they know they can turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid if union officials attempt to obstruct them from exercising those rights, the Foundation launched a special website: MyJanusRights.org.
Special Legal Notice to Rhode Island Public Employees: Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling Means You Can Resign from Union & Cut off Dues at Any Time
Legal group that won Janus case denounces Rhode Island union bosses and public officials who are misleading workers about their rights
RHODE ISLAND (October 11, 2018) – In response to reports that the Rhode Island Attorney General and Ocean State union officials are misinforming teachers and other public employees of their legal protections under the Foundation-won Janus decision, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have issued a Special Legal Notice for all Rhode Island teachers who wish to exercise their right to stop financially supporting a union.
The notice can be found here: Setting the Record Straight on Teacher Rights in Rhode Island after Janus v. AFSCME Council 31.
The notice comes after Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin – who signed onto an anti-Janus brief at the Supreme Court and received major support from union officials in his runs for public office – made the false claim that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling “only affects non-union members” and does not apply to union members.
The Attorney General is wrong. Under Janus all government employees have the right to resign their union membership and immediately stop any financial payments to union officials. Because the Supreme Court decision made it clear that public workers must opt-in to any union payments and explicitly waive their constitutional rights, union members cannot be restricted if they seek to resign from the union and stop the payment of any union dues or fees.
The Bristol-Warren Education Association (BWEA) and the National Education Association of Rhode Island (NEARI) also issued a letter blatantly misleading teachers about their Janus rights. The letter claims that union nonmembers must pay a NEARI attorney to file a grievance against the union. However, as the Foundation’s notice states, unions are legally obligated to provide grievance service to both members and nonmembers as part of its exclusive monopoly bargaining status.
The BWEA and NEARI union officials’ letter also incorrectly claims that nonmembers are unable to request days from the Sick Leave Bank, even though the BWEA’s monopoly bargaining agreement establishes the Sick Leave Bank for all teachers, including nonmembers, covered by the agreement.
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement regarding the notice:
“It’s shameful that the Attorney General of Rhode Island and union officials in the state are attempting to mislead public employees about their legal protections. Under Janus, any public sector employee can at any time exercise the First Amendment right to stop paying union dues and fees to a union they do not wish to support. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and is simply a cynical union boss money grab.
“Union officials ought to focus on earning the trust and support of the workers they claim to represent. Instead, they and their political allies are attempting to wield their unique monopoly bargaining privileges to discriminate against workers who seek to exercise their Janus rights. Any Rhode Island public teacher or other public employee who has been blocked from stopping union payments as is their right under Janus can turn to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal assistance.”
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are already representing workers in lawsuits across the country who have been wrongly blocked from exercising their rights under Janus.
Because of the numerous requests from workers for information about their rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Foundation established MyJanusRights.org to educate public employees about their protections under Janus.
The site also enables workers to request free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation if their rights are not being respected by union officials.
Citing Janus, Pennsylvania Public School Teachers Ask Federal Court to Strike Down Unconstitutional Law Authorizing Forced Dues
Teachers who sued to challenge forced union fees file motion asking court to apply the Supreme Court’s Janus decision to Keystone State law authorizing forced fees
Harrisburg, PA (October 9, 2018) – In an ongoing case challenging the constitutionality of mandatory union payments, a group of Pennsylvania teachers have asked a federal judge to apply the recent landmark Janus Supreme Court precedent by striking down the portions of Pennsylvania law that authorize forced union dues.
This case, Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, was originally filed in March 2017 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the state capital of Harrisburg. Teachers Gregory Hartnett of the Homer-Center School District, Elizabeth Galaska of the Twin Valley School District, and Robert Brough Jr. and John Cress of the Ellwood City Area School District, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Pennsylvania-based Fairness Center, filed the case as a First Amendment challenge to the state law which gives public sector union officials the power to compel non-union teachers and other government workers to pay union fees to keep their jobs.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois state worker Mark Janus, whose case was briefed and argued by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that, unless public sector workers affirmatively consent to paying union dues or fees and knowingly waive their First Amendment right not to subsidize a labor union, the collection of dues or fees violates their constitutional rights.
In light of the Janus decision, the teachers filed a motion for summary judgement last month, asking the court to take into account the Janus precedent and rule for the teachers. The motion asks the Court to invalidate Pennsylvania state law provisions which conflict with the teachers’ rights under Janus, striking down any authorization for mandatory union payments. On Friday, the teachers filed their opposition to the unions’ motion to dismiss the case.
The case isn’t the only one brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for workers challenging Pennsylvania law. In a case filed just last month, Foundation staff attorneys represent Pennsylvania school bus driver Michael Mayer, who sued after Teamsters union officials rejected his attempts to exercise his rights under Janus by resigning his union membership and informing the union it lacks his authorization for deducting dues from his paycheck.
“Thanks to the historic Foundation-won Janus precedent, teachers and school employees across the country are finally free to exercise their constitutional rights and decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve a portion of their paycheck,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, it is critical that any authorization for public sector forced dues be permanently removed from state law, so unscrupulous union bosses cannot use unconstitutional provisions to attempt to deceive workers about their right not to fund a labor union.”
To inform workers of their legal rights under Janus, and ensure they know they can turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid if union officials attempt to obstruct them from exercising those rights, the Foundation launched a special website: MyJanusRights.org.
October 5, 2018 – Officials of UNITE HERE have ordered Marriott employees out on strike across the country.
The situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike. Employees have the right under federal labor law to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for you to be informed about that right before you do so.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WORK DURING A STRIKE READ ALL OF THIS SPECIAL NOTICE BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK – IT MIGHT SAVE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!
UNITE HERE union officials have a decades long history of disciplining, fining and abusing workers who do not kow-tow to their dictates, as these reports show:
For this reason, Marriott employees may want to contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other vicious union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families. Much of the important information about your rights can be found on our website here:
The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources. You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you. For over four decades, Foundation attorneys have worked in the courts to protect and expand the rights of individual employees in situations such as strikes. It is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse.
Marriott employees should know they have the following rights:
1) You have the right to resign your membership in the union. If you don’t support this union, you can send it a letter resigning your membership. You cannot legally be required to be a union member.
2) You have the right to go to work even if the union bosses order a strike. Union officials can (and often do) levy onerous monetary fines against union members who work during a strike. So, you should seriously consider resigning your union membership BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the only way to avoid these ruinous union fines and discipline. See Union Discipline and Employee Rights. Your resignation letter must be postmarked THE DAY BEFORE you return to work, or be hand delivered BEFORE you actually return to work, ideally with a witness.
3) If you become a nonmember, you will have the right to become a "Beck objector" and pay only reduced "financial core" fees instead of full membership dues. If you become a Beck objector, you will not be forced to pay for the UNITE HERE union’s far left political and social agenda.
4) You also have the right to revoke your dues check-off and stop allowing the union hierarchy to automatically collect money from your paycheck every week while no contract is in effect. You can send letters to the union and your employer revoking your authorization to have union dues deducted from your paycheck.
5) If you wish to eject an unaccountable union hierarchy from your workplace, you have the right to sign and circulate a decertification petition to obtain a secret ballot election to do so. See Decertification Election.
Here is a sample letter for employees who wish to resign their union membership and become Beck objectors.
NOTE: Although not legally required, it is a better practice to send your letter to the union by certified mail, return receipt requested, and save a copy of your letter and the return receipt to prove delivery. If you hand deliver a letter, make sure that you have a reliable witness to the delivery. In our experience, angry and dishonest union officials often pretend they did not actually receive resignations and initiate discipline against non-striking workers anyway. A copy of the letter should also be delivered to the employer’s human resources or payroll department.