Columbus, OH (January 19, 2005) – A local Delille Oxygens worker filed federal unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters Union Local 284 after union officials unlawfully negotiated over workers’ terms of employment with company officials even though a dissenting majority of employees have signed a “decertification petition” seeking to rid their workplace of the unwanted union.

Delille Oxygens provides welding and industrial gas services within the Columbus metro area.

Delille Oxygens employee Michael Whetstone obtained free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed the class-action charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for the more than one dozen employees in the bargaining unit.

Whetstone alleges that Teamsters officials unlawfully ignored a decertification petition that he and other employees filed with the NLRB after the employer and the Teamsters had been negotiating for over a year. The petition demonstrated that a majority of employees rejected Teamsters union monopoly representation. Under the National Labor Relations Act, if a union has actual knowledge that 50% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit have signed a petition stating that they no longer want to be represented by a union, the union must cease negotiating for the employees. The NLRB will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint in the case.

“Union officials want workers like these to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than have their will stifled by union officials, these workers ought to be free to choose their own representation.”

The actions of Teamsters officials violated employee rights recognized by the National Labor Relations Act and affirmed by the NLRB in such cases as Maramont Corp. Under Maramont, union officials are prohibited from negotiating terms of employment as monopoly representative if they know they do not have the support of a majority of employees within the bargaining unit.

“Most employees prefer a workplace where they are free to discuss their terms and conditions of employment directly with the employer, without intervention by a third party,” said Gleason.

Fort Rucker, AL (January 6, 2005) —National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed arguments in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to defend the right of employees at Fort Rucker to refrain from joining or supporting a union.

The case involves attempts by Professional Helicopter Pilots Association Union Local 102 officials to force employees of private contractors providing services at Fort Rucker to join or pay dues to an unwanted union or be fired from their jobs – despite Alabama’s highly-popular Right to Work law prohibiting forced unionism.

In an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed in support of objecting employees Guadulupe Hernandez and Robert Bernal, Foundation attorneys urge the court to uphold a lower court decision that the State of Alabama and the federal government have concurrent legislative jurisdiction over the relevant portion of Fort Rucker known as Cairns Field. Thus employees working there are protected by Alabama’s Right to Work law and are not subject to compulsory unionism.

The case arose because union lawyers brought suit against Lear Siegler Services, Inc. after management refused to fire Hernandez and Bernal – neither of whom are union members — for non-payment of union dues.

Foundation attorneys maintain that the land patent ceding authority to the federal government over Cairns establishes “concurrent legislative jurisdiction,” rather than “exclusive jurisdiction” of the federal government. Under concurrent legislative jurisdiction, both state and federal laws apply.

The brief further argues that the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt states’ Right to Work laws and such laws apply where the state has concurrent jurisdiction. Union lawyers argue that the State of Alabama relinquished its sovereignty over Cairns field and can not enforce its Right to Work law.

“Union officials are trampling over our system of federalism and purposely advancing a twisted interpretation of the law in a naked effort to corral as many workers as possible into forced unionism,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

Union lawyers also argue that if a majority of the work performed under the labor contract is on territory where Alabama’s Right to Work law does not apply, than even those bargaining unit members who work on Shell Field (an area of Fort Rucker where Alabama’s authority to impose its laws is not in dispute) must be subject to forced unionism. Foundation attorneys respond that Alabama’s Right to Work law creates an individual right that protects employees wherever Alabama law applies.

Solon, Ohio (January 5, 2005) – A Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to prosecute Bakery and Confectionary Workers (BCW) Union Local 19 and Schwebel Baking Company, Inc. for causing the unlawful firing of a worker who exercised his right not to subsidize union political activities, and refused to join the union and sign a dues “check-off” card.

The NLRB complaint originated when Steven Taday, a former Schwebel employee, obtained free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed separate unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Schwebel and the BCW union, respectively. Taday filed the charges after union officials pressured the company into firing him for refusing to sign a card authorizing automatic dues deductions from his paychecks. The Regional Director consolidated the charges in issuing the formal complaint. The case will be heard by an Administrative Law Judge of the NLRB in March.

Taday alleges that, beginning in February 2004, union officials misrepresented his rights by telling him he had to maintain full union membership and sign a dues check-off authorization allowing the automatic deduction of union dues from his paycheck as a condition of employment.

“Union officials want workers like Steven Taday to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than respect the rights of workers they represent, union officials are bullying workers to pay for their political electioneering.”

Taday’s firing from Schwebel, which employs more than 300 people, violated his rights recognized by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must specifically inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and their right not to be forced to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

“Unfortunately, as long as Ohio workers labor under a system of compulsory unionism, these sorts of abuses will continue to plague workers across the state,” said Gleason.

Richmond, Va. (January 5, 2005) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has unanimously overturned a controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that handed union officials the power to force non-union employees across America to wear union insignia on their work uniforms or be fired.

The NLRB made its controversial ruling during the first year of President George W. Bush’s term while the federal labor agency was still dominated by appointees from President Clinton’s second term.

The case began in 1996 when National Right to Work Foundation attorneys assisted BellSouth Communications technicians Gary Lee and James Amburn of Charlotte, North Carolina, in filing charges at the NLRB against the major telecommunications company and Communications Workers of America (CWA) union after learning that BellSouth employees – regardless of union membership – must wear prominent union logo patches or risk being fired from their jobs.

In 1997, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a complaint against the CWA union and BellSouth for unfair labor practices. The complaint accepted Foundation attorneys’ arguments that forcing non-members to wear the CWA union logo violates their right to refrain from union activity and that the logo gave the false appearance that non-members belonged to or supported the union. (The employees exercised their right not to join the union under North Carolina’s highly-popular Right to Work law.)

However, in a decision filled with tortured legal reasoning – cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals as based on “no evidence” – the NLRB in Washington, DC, ruled that BellSouth’s uniform policy requiring the patch was a “special circumstance,” which trumped the statutory right of workers to refrain from supporting the union.

“No worker should be forced to be a walking billboard for a union seeking to trample their own freedoms,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This ruling is a small step in reversing the institutional bias of the NLRB in favor of union coercion and against employee free speech.”

The appellate court’s 3-0 decision agreed with Foundation attorneys’ arguments that provisions of the National Labor Relations Act embodied a “right to refrain from wearing union insignia.” The court rejected union and company officials’ claims that the display of the patch alongside the company logo on the uniform was so integral to the “public image” of BellSouth that the mandate superceded the individual rights of workers.

Asheboro, North Carolina (January 5, 2005) – United Steel Workers of America (USWA) union officials have dropped their bid to unionize the local Goodyear Tires (Goodyear) facility in order to settle a federal prosecution for unfair labor practices committed during a coercive organizing drive last year.

Goodyear’s controversial recognition of the union as the “exclusive bargaining agent” of the facility’s workers has been in dispute since last year. Numerous employees contend that union and company officials failed to honor employee revocations of previously signed union “authorization” cards and jointly imposed union representation on a dissenting majority of workers.

Receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, three workers at the Goodyear facility filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in July 2004 after USWA officials claimed that a majority of workers had signed union “authorization” cards and thus “voted” in favor of unionization. Goodyear subsequently installed the USWA union as the monopoly representative of the approximately 340 workers at the plant based on this dubious claim.

Many workers gave Goodyear, and the arbitrator who counted the cards, letters revoking their previously signed cards. USWA officials, Goodyear, and the arbitrator unlawfully ignored the revocations. The workers’ unfair labor practice charges simply asked the NLRB to recount the cards and recognize the revocations.

The NLRB Regional Director in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, ultimately sided with the three employees, and in December filed a formal complaint – ordered by the NLRB’s General Counsel – against Goodyear and the union. At the center of the NLRB’s settlement agreement is a mandate that union officials walk away.

“This victory is a step towards holding union officials across the country to account for trampling workers’ rights under abusive ‘card check’ schemes,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “While encouraging, it’s an outrage that Goodyear struck a backroom deal with USWA officials in the first place to deny these workers the freedom to decide their own representation through the less abusive secret ballot election process.”

Bowing to pressure from USWA union operatives, Goodyear had signed a so-called “neutrality agreement” that prohibits a traditional and less-abusive secret ballot election process in favor of a coercive “card check” campaign. Under the agreement, union organizers were given full access to employees’ personal information and company facilities to browbeat workers into signing union “authorization” cards.

Under the terms of the settlement, USWA union officials may not use the “card check” unionization scheme in any future organization attempts at the Asheboro Goodyear facility.

Port Jervis, NY (December 16, 2004) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in New York has issued a formal complaint against the Security Police Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union for unlawfully refusing to adequately detail the union’s expenditures, and subsequently threatening to have a local worker fired for refusing to pay full union dues. The NLRB Region 2 Director scheduled a hearing to prosecute the union after union officials failed to live up to an earlier promise to end related unfair labor practices.

With the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, Richard Grogan, a local security guard, alleges that SPFPA union officials failed to provide him with an independent audit of union expenditures as required by law, and that a union official illegally threatened him with termination for failure to allow the seizure of full union dues from his paycheck.

Richard Grogan originally filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against the SPFPA union in April 2004. While the charges were initially dropped by NLRB Region 2, they have now been re-instituted due to SPFPA officials’ refusal to honor the promise they made to NLRB Region 2.

An employee of Orange Regional Medical Center, Grogan notified union officials that he wished to resign his membership and objected to paying any dues or fees for nonrepresentational activities in December 2003. Since then, union officials have denied Grogan his right not to subsidize union politics by failing to provide a legally mandated independent audit of union expenditures.

“Union officials want workers like these to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than respect the rights of workers they claim to represent, union officials are bullying workers to pay for their political electioneering.”

The actions of the union hierarchy violated employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and their right not to be forced to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

NLRB Region 2 has now scheduled a February 22, 2005, hearing date to prosecute the SPFPA union for its unlawful practices.

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (December 16, 2004) — Attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed arguments in the Michigan Court of Appeals opposing the State’s precedent-setting actions to permit Michigan Education Association (MEA) union organizers to impose union monopoly bargaining on teachers at Brother Rice High School.

In their amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of a religious liberty public policy group known as the Acton Institute, Foundation attorneys urge the court to overturn a decision by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) claiming that the Catholic school falls under the jurisdiction of Michigan’s compulsory collective bargaining laws. The MERC ruling allowed union officials to target Brother Rice teachers for unionization and to be declared monopoly bargaining representatives for the teachers who provide the church’s religious instruction. Unless overturned, MERC’s decision could ultimately result in union monopoly bargaining privileges extending into the school’s hiring and firing practices, as well.

Foundation attorneys argue that federal constitutional law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent preclude state regulation of the religious institution, and that state supervision of a church school violates the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution. Foundation attorneys also cite that Catholic Church doctrine and the ideology of the MEA union are incompatible, and that the Michigan state government has excessively entangled itself with the institution.

The Foundation’s brief asserts that Michigan state law was not constructed in a way to include Brother Rice in the jurisdiction of union representation and state regulation. Imposing unionization and state supervision over educators at Brother Rice would force the Church to negotiate specific terms of employment which run counter to church doctrine, including the subsidizing of abortions in the church-provided healthcare package.

Foundation attorneys point out that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman that the government cannot foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.” Foundation attorneys argue that the Michigan Employment Relations Commission’s oversight of collective bargaining agreements would amount to an “excessive entanglement” in church activities because the Commission has acknowledged Brother Rice is “physically and financially” part of the Catholic Church. Additionally, since hiring practices at the school necessarily involve religious beliefs, the state could be asked to pass judgment upon church doctrine to determine whether the school’s refusal to bargain over certain terms is legitimately based on religious belief.

“In their lust for more compulsory dues, teacher union officials have again crossed the line – placing their own selfish interests above the wishes of people of faith. If they get away with it here, there is no question they will make similar power grabs across Michigan and even in other states,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

Cleveland, Ohio (December 15, 2004) – A local SBC Communications worker filed federal unfair labor practice charges against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Union Local 4309 today after union officials fined her for continuing to work during a strike and lied about her rights to refrain from union membership.

Sanda Ilias, an employee of SBC, obtained free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after union officials violated her rights by insisting that she could not resign from formal union membership and withheld repayment of forced dues spent for union political activities.

Ilias alleges that CWA union officials never informed her of the strike that was supposedly underway in the summer of 2004. When union officials informed her that it was against union member rules to work during a union-ordered strike, she complied. However, union officials later fined Ilias $528 for unknowingly working during the strike, while having lied to her by telling her she had to be a full union member in order to keep her job. The NLRB will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint in the case.

“Union officials want workers like these to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than look after the interests of workers they claim to represent, CWA officials often go to great lengths to stifle dissent.”

The actions of CWA union officials violated employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and observe their right not to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

“Unfortunately, as long as Ohio workers labor under a system of compulsory unionism, abuses of this nature will continue to plague workers across the state,” said Gleason.

San Francisco, Calif. (December 8, 2004) – Three local station engineers for Univision’s KDTV-Channel 14 filed federal charges against broadcasting union officials for failing to honor employees’ rights to refrain from subsidizing union politics, demanding payment of full union dues over their objections, and threatening to have dissenting employees fired for refusal to pay full dues.

With free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, William Sanders, Victor Aelion, and Cheyney Bryan filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) Union Local 51 and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union. The federal labor agency will now investigate the allegations and determine whether to issue a complaint and formally prosecute. The NABET union falls under the CWA union’s national umbrella.

The employees allege that, beginning in May 2004, they informed union officials that they were asserting their right to refrain from paying full union dues. However, union officials demanded that they reconfirm their objection on an annual basis.

“Union officials want professionals like William Sanders and his coworkers to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than respect the rights of workers they claim to represent, union officials are bullying workers to pay for their political electioneering.”

The workers’ unfair labor practice charges follow similar charges filed late last year after NABET and CWA officials failed to give workers an adequate notice of their right to pay less than full union dues and threatened to have them fired unless they paid a union initiation fee (amounting to three weeks’ pay) as well as several months of back dues.

The actions of NABET and CWA union officials violated employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and observe their right not to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

“No one should be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union just to get or keep their job,” stated Gleason. “This is especially true when union officials go out of their way to bully and threaten workers simply for trying to exercise their rights.”

Erie, Pennsylvania (December 6, 2004) – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, have granted a request by local Electrical Materials Company workers for a hearing into union officials’ misuse of compulsory union dues.

The NLRB Region 6 director issued an unfair labor practices complaint against the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Union Local 684, and UE District 6 after the workers – with the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys — successfully appealed their case to the NLRB General Counsel in Washington, DC.

The employees and the government prosecutors allege that union officials denied employees their right not to subsidize union politics, failed to provide them with a legally-mandated independent audit of union expenditures, and continued to seize full union dues from workers’ paychecks after they notified union officials that they objected to paying full dues.

Lynn Whelan, Gary Brown, and Miles Kidder, employees of Electrical Materials Company, which manufactures copper products, obtained free legal assistance from the Foundation and filed the original unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB in November 2003 after union officials repeatedly denied their right to refrain from paying full union dues.

The employees allege that, beginning in October 2003, they informed union officials that they were exercising their right to refrain from paying full union dues. However, union officials demanded that they reconfirm their objection on an annual basis.

“Union officials want workers like these to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than respect the rights of workers they claim to represent, union officials are bullying workers to pay for their political electioneering.”

The actions of UE union officials violated employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and their right not to be forced to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

When pressed by the employees for a legally-mandated breakdown of union expenditures, UE union officials reluctantly released a statement from fiscal year ending June 2003 which showed 32% of dues money was unlawfully spent on “nonrepresentational activities,” but continued to deduct full union dues from the paychecks of nonunion workers. The NLRB Region has scheduled the hearing for February 2005 before an Administrative Law Judge.