Scheme prevents lifeguards from ending union membership for four years; Supreme Court petition also filed for CA in-home caregivers suffering similar restriction

Washington, DC (September 7, 2022) – Orange County, CA, lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 20 of his Southern California colleagues have just submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Justices to hear their case challenging California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials’ so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction. The lifeguards are also suing State of California officials for their role in enforcing the restriction.

Savas and his colleagues argue the union-created scheme violates their rights under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared that public sector workers cannot be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments. Janus was won by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who also represent Savas and his fellow lifeguards for free in the present case, along with the Freedom Foundation and Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.

Under the “maintenance of membership” requirement, CSLEA union bosses and the State of California force the lifeguards to both remain formal union members and supply full union dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations back in September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they must remain full members until 2023 or be fired. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.

Foundation staff attorneys have also just filed a petition for writ of certiorari for Dolores Polk and several other California in-home caregivers, who are challenging a union “escape period” scheme limiting their Janus right to cut off union dues to just a handful of days per year. Although Polk and her fellow in-home caregivers are not public employees, they are still forced by California law to work under the so-called “representation” of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials.

Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades

Savas and his fellow lifeguards’ Foundation-provided attorneys argue that the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to strike down “maintenance of membership” requirements does not only contradict Janus’ ban on all forced dues in the public sector, but even goes against the Supreme Court’s now-overturned 1977 decision in Abood. Abood let union officials force dissenting public sector employees to pay a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.

“If anything, maintenance of membership requirements are more injurious to First Amendment rights because they also compel employees to remain union members over their objection—which infringes on associational rights—and [forces workers] to subsidize union speech” with full dues payments, reads the petition. That exceeds the boundaries set in Abood and includes subsidization of union political activity.

Savas’ petition also slams the Ninth Circuit’s failure to apply the Supreme Court’s “waiver” test to CSLEA’s “maintenance of membership” restriction. Janus dictated that union dues can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee gives a “clear and compelling” waiver of Janus rights. Foundation attorneys point out that the CSLEA union’s dues deductions forms contained only a “vague reference” to the “maintenance of membership” restriction. The Ninth Circuit erroneously believed that was enough to satisfy Janus requirements.

“A vague reference to unspecified limitations in ‘the Unit 7 contract and State law’ does not establish the Lifeguards contractually consented” to become and remain union members for four years, the petition says.

Supreme Court Must Intervene to Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Restrictions

The petition for Savas and his fellow lifeguards emphasizes how crucial it is for the Supreme Court to overturn cumbersome “maintenance of membership” restrictions, pointing out that California unions and legislators will continue to force public employees to remain formal union members and pay full dues as a condition of employment. “Other states likely will follow suit, such as Pennsylvania, whose laws also authorize maintenance of membership requirements,” the brief states.

In Polk’s petition, Foundation attorneys also emphasize the importance of striking down similarly anti-Janus “escape periods.” If the Court does not act, reads the petition, “There are few impediments to states and unions including oppressive restrictions in [dues deduction] forms, such as a requirement that individuals cannot stop state dues deductions except during annual ten-day periods,” allowing union officials an effective workaround of the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to represent.

“The Ninth Circuit’s giving a pass to so-called ‘maintenance of membership’ restrictions effectively gives union officials complete control over when public employees can exercise their rights to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That erases not only the protections against all forced dues payments provided by Janus, but even older rulings that forbade union officials from forcing full union membership and payment for union political activities on public workers.”

“The Supreme Court must intervene in Mr. Savas’ case and Ms. Polk’s case to protect public sector workers’ First Amendment rights and prevent union bosses and their political allies from replicating across the country these patently unconstitutional restrictions,” Mix added.

“Public sector employees have been leaving their government employee unions in droves when they learn they have the right to do so,” explained Freedom Foundation attorney Rebekah Millard. “These California unions are employing tactics to entrap people in the union, forcing them to keep paying dues against their will. It is time for the Supreme Court to step in and affirm the First Amendment rights laid out in Janus.”

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2022:

Today, we should remember that Labor Day is about celebrating the determination and ingenuity of America’s workers and the importance of protecting workers’ individual rights. Vital among these is every American worker’s Right to Work: the freedom to decide to join or financially support a union, or refrain from doing so.

Unfortunately, union officials will attempt to steal the spotlight on Labor Day to drum up support for their coercive political ideas, almost all of which involve blatant infringements of the Right to Work. Big Labor and its political allies like Joe Biden claim that workers favor unions and that union officials should be granted nearly unlimited power to sweep workers under union control.

This fiction is false and incredibly damaging to workers’ freedom. The truth is, the average unionized worker is more likely to be involved in an effort to vote out an unpopular union than a non-union worker is to be involved in a campaign to install one. Even so, union officials are making a full-court press both in Congress and at executive agencies to eliminate state Right to Work protections and force millions more workers across the country to pay union bosses just to stay employed, and to make it even harder for workers to vote out a union they don’t want.

Defending worker freedom is a better way for American workers, and the evidence for this is abundant. The last decade saw the number of states that protect Right to Work grow to a majority, and employees have been flocking to Right to Work states to take advantage of the economic opportunity and prosperity supported by Right to Work laws. As of last year, a majority of American workers live in states where the Right to Work is safeguarded.

Right to Work finds support with the vast majority of Americans year after year because it is a common-sense moral principle with clear benefits to workers and their families. In the midst of continued economic uncertainty and unprecedented union power grabs, we have a duty to make sure that workers’ fundamental rights are protected. Let’s remember that this Labor Day and continue to fight for worker freedom.

IBEW union officials threatened to fire worker for failure to pay union fees, even though union contract is invalid

Murphysboro, IL (August 26, 2022) – Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck has filed new federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 702 union, stating that union officials threatened to get her fired for failure to pay union fees demanded under a defective contract.

Beck, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, has amended charges she hit the union with in June. The original charges stated IBEW union officials unlawfully seized money from her wages without her consent and without proving that a contract mandating such deductions is in effect.

Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can legally force workers in facilities under union control to pay some union fees just to stay employed. However, union bosses lose this legal privilege if there is no valid monopoly bargaining contract in effect. Under longstanding law, union officials must also gain consent from a worker before they can demand that an employer deduct compulsory fees from a worker’s paycheck.

Beck’s original unfair labor practice charge noted that she sent a letter to IBEW union chiefs and her employer in January 2022 exercising her right to resign her union membership and to stop any union dues deductions from her paychecks that are not required to maintain employment. Her letter also demanded a copy of any contract that gives IBEW officials the power to require dues payments as a condition of employment.

When she received no response, she redelivered this letter by hand in March 2022. In this letter Beck also requested that, if IBEW union officials could produce a valid contract, her dues payments be reduced as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In CWA v. Beck the Court ruled that union officials in non-Right to Work states cannot force nonmembers to pay fees for political and other union activities outside the union’s bargaining functions. Union dues were still deducted from her paycheck after this letter.

IBEW Union Bosses Blew Off Worker Requests for Months, Then Threatened Her Termination

Beck’s amended charge states that IBEW union officials didn’t acknowledge her requests until July, when they finally sent a copy of the union contract and ended dues deductions, but still demanded she pay an unspecified amount of union fees to keep her job. The amended charge points out that the contract produced does not contain language that lets IBEW bosses take advantage of their legal privilege to force all employees to pay dues as a condition of employment.

According to the amended charge, the contract also does not “contain the grace period required by Section 8(a)(3)” of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That section of the NLRA requires new employees to be given at least 30 days before being compelled to pay union fees in a workplace under a forced-fees union contract.

Union officials in an August 9 letter threatened to terminate Beck by August 15 if she didn’t pay union fees. “The letter failed to provide Charging Party with the exact amount the Union claims she owes or a reasonable opportunity for her to pay those alleged fees,” Beck’s amended charge says. Both are required by longstanding precedents.

Beck’s new charge argues that the union’s continued deduction of dues after her March letter and demands for union fees without a valid contract in place violate her rights under the NLRA.

“IBEW bosses threatening to upend Ms. Beck’s career for failure to pay fees to which the union’s sloppily-written contract doesn’t even entitle them is terrible malfeasance to be sure, but a correctly written contract certainly wouldn’t solve the problem,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The real injustice is that millions of workers across the country, Ms. Beck included, can be forced to pay anything to a union hierarchy just to keep their jobs.”

“Ultimately, every worker in America deserves the protection of a Right to Work law, not only so workers are shielded from having to choose between their jobs and funding a union they oppose, but also because when dues are fully voluntary union officials must prove their worth to workers before earning their financial support,” Mix added.

Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory protects public workers’ right not to fund union they oppose, but union officials can still ‘speak for’ dissident workers

Washington, DC (August 19, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement in recognition of National Employee Freedom Week:

“On this week, we remind all independent-minded American educators and public sector workers that the First Amendment forbids union officials from getting employees fired merely for refusal to join or fund a union that pushes divisive politics, negotiates lousy contracts, or simply acts against worker interests.

“However, while the Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME protects public workers’ ability to stop subsidizing union activities they oppose, much more needs to be done to fully defend these employees’ free association rights. Public sector union officials in the vast majority of states still wield government-granted monopoly ‘representation’ power over workers who don’t want and never asked for a union, and the Foundation is currently fighting alongside workers who oppose their voices being stifled by this coercive, unconstitutional privilege.”

National Employee Freedom Week is dedicated to educating American public teachers and other public sector employees that they have a right to refuse to fund or join unions in their workplace that do not serve their interests. Public employees are also advised this week that, although union bosses don’t want them to know it, many non-union voluntary options exist to provide liability insurance and other benefits that union officials tout as a reason to join a union, even though union membership means paying for union political activities that many workers oppose. In fact, many non-union options for liability insurance, especially for teachers, provide better coverage than union options at far less cost to teachers.

In the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys, the Justices ruled that public employees have a First Amendment right to cut off dues to an unwanted union, and also recognized that union dues could only be deducted from a public sector employee’s paycheck with their explicit consent. Even today, many union officials refuse to abide by this limit on their coercive power, resulting in numerous ongoing lawsuits by Foundation staff attorneys seeking to enforce workers’ Janus rights.

In the Janus decision, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, additionally explained that union monopoly “representation” power in the public sector is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts,” perhaps indicating an interest from the High Court in striking down this coercive privilege in the future.

Trial documents show union activist advocating ‘targeted assassinations’ of union critics, Southwest senior management referring to nonmember as ‘cancer’

Dallas, TX (August 3, 2022) – During former Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter’s recently-concluded federal trial over her illegal firing at the hands of Southwest and Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), disturbing details emerged about the union’s treatment of employees who object to the union’s agenda. The trial ended in a unanimous jury verdict in favor of Carter which awarded her more than $5 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages.

Carter’s Foundation staff attorneys filed a lawsuit for her in 2017 against the union and Southwest for illegally firing her for speaking out about her religious beliefs and against the union’s political activities. In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, then union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.” That event was sponsored by political groups Carter opposed, including Planned Parenthood.

The illegal firing occurred after President Stone reported Carter to Southwest for sending Stone online messages challenging Stone’s leadership and the political agenda the union hierarchy was pursuing. Carter’s opposition to union political activities included the TWU officials’ advocacy against a National Right to Work law which, if passed, would have allowed Carter to completely cut off financial support to the union.

Emails Show Union Militants Ridiculed Employees Who Didn’t Want to Fund Union Politics, Pushed ‘Targeted Assassinations’ for Union Dissidents

At the trial Carter’s attorneys introduced emails obtained in discovery that showed TWU higher-ups’ contempt for workers opposed to the union’s control. A 2014 email communication to Southwest’s then-Senior Director in Inflight Services, Sonya Lacore, from TWU union activist Brian Talburt had the latter advocating for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents via social media. Lacore referred to Talburt as her “frequent pen pal” during her deposition prior to trial.

In the same email, Talburt labeled Corliss King, who later became a Local 556 executive board member, as “incredibly dangerous” because “She will play VERY well to the heavy inner city, minority crowd.” Talburt suggested there would be an “opportunity” for an assassination of King given what he described as her “dreadful work history.”

Also in the email, a union nonmember and frequent critic, Mike Casper, was referred to as a “cancer” that must be “eradicated.” Talburt also appears to call union critics “sheeple” and “cancer,” and says dissent against the union is “a dangerous thing and must b [sic] eradicated when ever [sic] possible or it spreads… I highly encourage targeting people.”

Talburt later forwarded the email to TWU president Stone highlighting what he claimed was “off the record” promotion to Lacore of “targeted assassination” of union critics. President Stone would then later target Carter with the complaint to company management that led to Carter’s illegal termination by Southwest.

President Stone also testified at trial to reporting other union opponents to Southwest, including the leader of the recall effort whom Stone reported for criticizing her on social media for reporting Carter. Throughout 2017, Talburt repeatedly emailed Southwest management, asking that they discipline the recall leader and other union opponents for their protected activities.

Emails unearthed by Foundation attorneys and introduced at trial also showed the contempt that Southwest and TWU officials had for Carter specifically because she opposed union political activities. After Carter sent an email to TWU Local 556 Treasurer John Parrot demanding that the union stop deductions from her paycheck for the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC), Parrot forwarded Carter’s request to several union agents, saying “Ha! She has been supporting the thing she despises this entire time…”

One respondent to Parrot’s forward was Todd Gage, a TWU Local 556 Vice President, who wrote: “I wish I could give her a list of all the campaigns she has donated to in the last 17 years! Her head would explode.” Local 556 Second Vice President, Brett Nevarez, said “so typical bat****/dip**** cannot read her paycheck!”

Foundation Attorneys Will Continue to Defend Carter

Despite the unanimous jury verdict for Carter, Southwest and TWU union officials have announced that they will appeal. Foundation staff attorneys will continue to defend Carter.

“Ms. Carter demonstrated that, even in an overwhelmingly toxic environment, independent-minded workers can stand up, push back against union boss attacks on individual rights and free speech, and win,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The evidence presented at Carter’s trial reveals an ingrained union culture of intimidation and prejudice against dissident workers. While we will keep fighting to defend Ms. Carter’s victory for her rights, flight attendants or other employees who have experienced similar hostility should not hesitate to contact the National Right to Work Foundation for help in defending their rights.”

“Federal law governing labor relations in the air and rail industries allows union officials to demand workers fund their activities as a condition of employment,” Mix added. “TWU union officials’ attacks on employees who disagree with the union’s agenda are the unsurprising result of a system in which workers do not have even the simple power to withhold dues when union officials violate their rights – an accountability mechanism Right to Work protects.”