Brief at Michigan Supreme Court filed in union lawsuit seeking to force nonmembers to pay union fees in violation of state Right to Work law

Lansing, MI (March 25, 2022) – Today National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in the Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) v. Daniel Lee Renner case currently before the Michigan Supreme Court. In the case, Saginaw County employee Daniel Renner is contesting a union scheme designed to eliminate the Michigan Right to Work law’s protection against forcing employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment.

The Foundation’s brief argues that TPOAM bosses’ “fee-for-grievance” arrangement violates Michigan’s Right to Work law, as it weaponizes union bosses’ extraordinary power over the grievance process in order to coerce nonmember workers forced under the union’s monopoly contract into paying union fees. Because workers under union monopoly bargaining “representation” do not have the power to file meaningful grievances themselves, the brief argues, this is a blatant attempt to gut the Right to Work law and allow union bosses to force nonmembers to financially support unions.

Both the Michigan Employment Relations Committee (MERC) and the Michigan Court of Appeals have already rejected union officials’ arguments that they can refuse to file grievances for nonmembers unless nonmembers pay union fees. In Renner’s case, union officials demanded upwards of $1,000 from him.

“The legislature’s inclusion of [Right to Work] provisions shows a specific intent to outlaw compulsory grievance fee schemes like those successfully challenged here,” the Foundation’s brief says.

Union Officials Already Maintain Full Control over Grievances – Often to Detriment of Workers

Union officials for decades have had the privilege under federal and state law to control every aspect of the grievance process in a workplace where they are in power. This already often gives them the latitude to toss out or slow-walk grievances they do not think are in the union’s interest.

In fact, in Michigan, two federal lawsuits are pending in which rank-and-file employees under the monopoly control of United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials accuse the union of mishandling grievances. The cases together involve nearly 100 Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) employees challenging UAW officials’ inexplicable mishandling or withdrawal of grievances workers had filed regarding pay cuts or illicit employee transfers.

Foundation staff attorneys have aided Michigan workers in defending their Right to Work freedoms in well over 100 cases since the Wolverine State’s Right to Work law was enacted in 2012.

“Having faced defeat time and time again in the state legislature, Michigan union bosses and their political cronies are now trying to use the courts to eliminate Right to Work and reinstall their forced-dues reign in the Wolverine State,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s worth pointing out, however, that the enormous power union officials enjoy under state law to impose their ‘representation’ on all employees in a workplace, union members or not, is the only thing that let them create the scheme which sparked this conflict in the first place.”

“While employees’ right to abstain from membership or dues payment to an unwanted union should always be protected, union officials shouldn’t be able to force their control on employees who don’t want and never asked for it,” Mix added.

Union bosses illegally demanded union dues, lectured worker and her priest about Catholic teachings and sent ‘remedial church readings’

Clarksville, TN (March 25, 2022) – Former Blanchfield Army Community Hospital employee Dorothy Frame has won a settlement against Laborers International Union (LIUNA) officials in a federal lawsuit charging them with illegal religious discrimination. Frame filed her case with free assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Frame’s November 2021 complaint said LIUNA officials illegally discriminated against her by forcing her, in violation of her Catholic beliefs, to fund the union’s activities through mandatory union dues payments. Frame voiced her religious objections to the union’s stances, but union officials repeatedly rejected and ridiculed her requests for a religious accommodation, according to her lawsuit.

Under the settlement, as a condition of dismissing the lawsuit against LIUNA, union officials must pay Frame $10,000 in damages. The settlement also requires LIUNA officials’ attorney to send an apology letter to Frame for the union’s inappropriate conduct.

“I knew in my heart and in my soul that I was right,” Frame said about the successful conclusion of her case. “This is one of the greatest things that I’ve ever done in my life. It was hard; it was so hard.”

LIUNA Officials Illegally Snubbed Worker’s Religious Accommodation Request

Frame first requested a religious accommodation in 2019, when she sent a letter informing LIUNA officials of the conflict between her religious beliefs and the requirement that she join or pay the union.

Tennessee has a Right to Work law ensuring that private sector workers in the state cannot be compelled to pay dues as a condition of employment. But Fort Campbell, the location of Blanchfield hospital where Frame worked, is a “federal enclave” not subject to state law. Frame’s former employer, J & J Worldwide Service, maintains a union monopoly contract with LIUNA union bosses that forces employees to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.

Frame’s July 2019 letter also included a message from her parish priest supporting her request for a religious accommodation. Federal law prohibits unions from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, and requires unions to provide accommodations to workers who oppose dues payment on religious grounds.

Rather than fulfill their obligation under federal law to provide her such an accommodation, Frame’s complaint reported, LIUNA officials denigrated her beliefs.

Frame’s complaint recounted that union lawyers demanded she provide a “legitimate justification” for why her conflict with the union’s activity warranted a religious accommodation. A union lawyer also claimed in a letter, according to Frame’s complaint, that “Ms. Frame’s understanding of her faith was inferior to his own understanding of her faith.” He even closed the letter by “sending Ms. Frame – and her priest – remedial church readings.”

“It crushed me, it hurt me so deeply. Not just for them to say that to me, but to tell my priest that,” Frame said of the experience. “It crushed me, and it actually made me more determined.”

Frame subsequently filed a discrimination charge against LIUNA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 2019. Even after EEOC proceedings and additional letters from Frame’s attorney demonstrating the conflict between the union’s activity and her faith, Frame’s complaint explains, union officials still refused to accommodate her beliefs and refused to return money they took from her paycheck after she requested an accommodation.

Ultimately the EEOC issued Frame a “right to sue” letter leading to her federal anti-discrimination lawsuit, filed by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

“Ms. Frame believes that abortion is a grave sin,” her lawsuit detailed. “She believes joining or financially supporting the Unions would make her complicit in that sin because she believes that the Unions support and promote abortion. Thus, she believes that any money the Unions collect from her makes her complicit in sin and violates her religious beliefs.”

Foundation President: Forced Dues Privileges Create ‘Breeding Ground’ For Discrimination

“Despite being targeted with years of bullying and discrimination by LIUNA officials, Ms. Frame refused to forsake her religious beliefs and stood firm for her rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “She has now prevailed decisively against LIUNA’s illegal attempt to force her to choose between remaining true to her beliefs and staying employed.”

“While the National Right to Work Foundation is proud to stand with principled workers like Ms. Frame, Big Labor’s government-granted privilege to force rank-and-file workers to support their activities creates a breeding ground for such malfeasance and anti-worker abuse,” Mix continued. “No American worker should have to pay tribute to a union they oppose just to keep their job, whether their objections are religious or otherwise.”

Petition for vote follows NLRB order to overturn majority vote by other Red Rock employees who rejected Culinary Union

Las Vegas, NV (March 21, 2022) – Slot machine technicians at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas are seeking a vote on whether to remove International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 501 officials from control at their workplace. Red Rock technician Jereme Barrios submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Barrios’ petition for a union decertification vote contains the signatures of a large majority of slot machine technicians at the casino, far more than the percentage NLRB rules require to trigger a vote. Barring any delays, the vote should be held in April at the casino.

Thanks to Foundation-backed changes to union election rules that the NLRB adopted in 2020, Barrios and his colleagues expect to vote promptly. Before the reforms, union bosses were often able to delay decertification elections for months or even years by filing “blocking charges,” sometimes repeatedly.

“Blocking charges” are often-unverified allegations of employer misbehavior that union officials regularly invent to stop workers from booting them from a facility. As a result of the Foundation-backed changes, in most circumstances union officials’ “blocking charges” cannot stop a vote from being promptly scheduled, and are generally dealt with after the ballots have been counted and the tally announced.

Other Red Rock Employees Fight for Freedom from Culinary Union

The slot techs’ effort comes as Red Rock hospitality and foodservice staff, led by employee Raynell Teske, are battling an order from a federal district court judge that forces them under the “representation” of Culinary Union bosses. The order came despite the fact that a majority of hospitality and foodservice employees voted to reject union officials’ effort to install themselves at the casino.

NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet asked a federal court to issue an order unilaterally imposing unionization despite Teske and her coworkers’ objections. US District Judge Gloria Navarro issued the order in July 2021. A legal brief filed for Teske by Foundation staff attorneys argues that the basis for overturning the workers’ vote – Culinary Union bosses’ claim that they have “union cards” from workers indicating majority support – is unreliable and disregards the clear will of workers as expressed in the secret ballot election.

Palms Casino Employee, also Seeking to Oust Unpopular Union, Battles Dubious NLRB Ruling

Barrios and his colleagues are seeking freedom from the IUOE union at the same time as Thomas Stallings and his fellow maintenance workers at Palms Casino in Las Vegas are attempting to get a vote whether to remove IUOE and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) officials from their workplace.

With Foundation legal aid Stallings filed last year an Emergency Request for Expedited Review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC, in response to NLRB Region 28 Director Overstreet’s blocking of his request for a vote based on union “blocking charges.”

Stallings’ request argues that Overstreet is leaving him and his coworkers trapped under an unpopular union despite the new NLRB rules regarding “blocking charges,” and despite the fact the unions’ accusations against the employer relate to other unions besides those involved in his case, and to other bargaining units having nothing to do with the 19-person maintenance unit involved in his case.

“Las Vegas union officials likely believe they can violate workers’ free choice rights without any consequences, as it seems ‘the union house always wins’ at NLRB Region 28,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Barrios, Ms. Teske, and Mr. Stallings are standing up for themselves and their coworkers by opposing unpopular union bosses. Foundation attorneys will fight to make sure their voices are heard even though the deck may seem to be stacked against independent-minded workers.”

Public educators have right to rebuff union officials’ demands that they abandon students, also have right to stop all dues deductions

Minneapolis, MN (March 7, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special legal notice to teachers and other staff at Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools, whom officials of the Minnesota Federation of Teachers (MFT) union, St. Paul Federation of Educators (SPFE) union, and other unions have ordered to strike beginning March 8. Both MFT and SPFE are affiliates of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union.

The legal notice informs rank-and-file teachers and other school employees of the rights teacher union bosses won’t inform them of, including their right to refuse to abandon their students and to keep working to support their families despite the union-ordered strike. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.

“This situation raises serious concerns for Minneapolis and St. Paul public educators who believe there is much to lose from a union boss-ordered strike and do not want their students to fall behind,” the notice reads. “Employees have the legal right to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for them to be fully informed before they do so.”

The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/mft-strike-legal-notice/.

The notice outlines the process that Minneapolis and St. Paul educators should follow if they want to exercise their right to resign their union memberships and return to work during the strike while avoiding punishment by union bosses. The notice also links to sample union membership resignation letters.

The notice reminds educators of their First Amendment right, under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, to cut off all union dues payments. In Janus, the High Court recognized that public sector employees like public educators cannot be forced to pay any union dues or fees to get or keep a job, and that union officials can only deduct union dues or fees from public employees’ paychecks with their affirmative consent.

The Foundation scored a victory just last week for a Los Angeles-area public teacher who was the target of Janus rights violations by California Teachers Association (CTA) officials. Natalie Bahl, a teacher at Camino Nuevo Charter Academy, sent a letter to union and school officials exercising her Janus right to stop union deductions, only to find afterward that school administrators were still taking dues from her paycheck at the behest of CTA bosses. After Foundation staff attorneys sent a letter threatening litigation if the illegally-taken monies were not returned to Bahl, CTA officials backed down and refunded the ill-gotten money.

“Minneapolis and St. Paul educators should know they unequivocally have the right to reject union boss strike orders and continue working to make sure their pupils do not fall behind,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The last two years showed some particularly aggressive politicking by top teacher union bosses across the country, especially AFT President Randi Weingarten, which resulted in long-running, heavy-handed restrictions on public education. With that in mind, public school employees are right to question whether this strike is really what is best for the Twin Cities’ kids, teachers, and community at large.”

“Rank-and-file educators should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid if they believe union officials may be violating their legal rights,” added Mix.

RWDSU officials who used litigation to nullify overwhelming worker vote against union at Alabama Amazon facility sought to do the same at Ecolab

Atlanta, GA (March 15, 2022) – Employees at chemical company Ecolab’s Atlanta-area location are one step closer to successfully removing Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, Southeast Council (RWDSU) union officials from their workplace.

Ecolab employee Irvin Arnold in October 2021 submitted a “decertification petition” signed by his colleagues, which prompted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct an election at his workplace on whether the union should be scrapped. Arnold received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Ecolab employees voted in December 2021 to send RWDSU officials packing from the plant. However, RWDSU officials filed objections after the election in an attempt to reverse the workers’ exercise of their right to dispense with the unwanted union.

After a hearing and the filing of briefs, a regional NLRB official ruled on March 11 that “the Union’s objections should be overruled in their entirety,” and that Arnold and his coworkers’ vote to oust the union should be certified.

Foundation-backed Reforms Prevented RWDSU Chiefs from Blocking Employee Vote

The Ecolab employees’ push to remove RWDSU officials benefitted from Foundation-backed changes to union election rules that the NLRB adopted in 2020. Before the reforms, union bosses were often able to delay decertification elections for months or even years by filing “blocking charges,” sometimes repeatedly.

“Blocking charges” are often unverified and unrelated allegations of employer misbehavior that union officials regularly manipulate to stop workers from booting them from a facility.

As a result of the changes, in most circumstances union officials’ “blocking charges” cannot stop a vote from being promptly scheduled, and are generally dealt with after the ballots have been counted and the tally announced.

The RWDSU is notably the same union that Bessemer, AL, Amazon employees rejected by a more than 2-to-1 margin during a highly publicized April 2021 union election. However, the NLRB voided the result and ordered a rerun election after an intense litigation effort by RWDSU lawyers to install the union at the plant over worker opposition. Barely 12% of eligible voters indicated support for union bosses’ monopoly “representation.”

Alabama Amazon workers are now casting ballots in the new election, with counting slated to begin March 28.

Foundation attorneys recently aided another group of workers in removing unwanted RWDSU union officials. In October 2021, Ervin Par of Queens, NY-based Main Street Car Wash submitted the second valid decertification petition in his and his coworkers’ three-year attempt to remove RWDSU bosses from their workplace. Rather than face an employee vote that would have likely ended in defeat, RWDSU officials disclaimed interest in continuing their control over the car wash early last November.

Foundation President: RWDSU Officials Have ‘Penchant’ for Opposing Workers’ Will

“We at the Foundation are proud to help Mr. Arnold and his coworkers freely exercise their right to oust unwanted RWDSU officials from their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, as his situation and the situation at Amazon in Alabama show, RWDSU officials have a penchant for opposing the will and rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent.’ If the wishes of rank-and-file workers mean anything to RWDSU officials, the union will file no further appeals and accept the clear message that they are not wanted by Ecolab employees.”

“No American worker should be trapped under the control of union officials that they do not want,” Mix continued. “Any worker across the country who opposes RWDSU officials’ presence in their workplace should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal aid in exercising their rights.”

NLRB-invented “successor bar” blocks employees’ statutory right to vote out union despite 70 percent of workers wanting Teamsters removed

Indianapolis, IN (March 8, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Kerry Atkins and his coworkers at the US Brick facility in Mooresville, IN, are fighting a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order stifling their right to vote out an unpopular union at the plant. Atkins submitted on March 7 a Request for Review, asking the full NLRB in Washington, DC, to overturn the decision and eliminate a non-statutory NLRB doctrine called the “successor bar” that blocks employees’ right to vote out an unwanted union when management changes hands in a workplace.

Atkins filed a petition in December 2021 requesting that the NLRB hold a vote whether to decertify Teamsters Local 135 union officials. NLRB Regional Director Patricia Nachand ruled on February 9 that US Brick’s recent acquisition of the plant triggered the so-called “successor bar” and rendered the employee petition invalid.

The “successor bar” is a non-statutory policy invented by NLRB appointees that immunizes union officials from being voted out by employees for up to a year after management changes as a result of a sale, merger, or acquisition. Employees have a statutory right to hold decertification elections to remove union monopoly “representation” they oppose, but the “successor bar” is found nowhere in the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which the NLRB is charged with enforcing. In that statute, the only “bar” to holding a decertification election is if a prior NLRB election was held within the previous year.

According to Atkins’ Request for Review, a Department of Justice antitrust complaint forced the former employer, General Shale, to sell the Mooresville facility before it could complete a transaction with another company. US Brick purchased the Mooresville plant from General Shale in November 2021, and rehired all 33 employees, including Atkins, in the bargaining unit controlled by the Teamsters union.

In addition to Atkins’ submission of the petition for a decertification vote, the NLRB Regional Director’s order mentions that plant management has in its possession a more general petition expressing disaffection with the Teamsters, which bears the signatures of about 70 percent of the employees. Even though the signatures “were verified by the Human Resources Manager against completed I-9 forms,” the Regional Director’s order says “[t]he hearing officer denied questioning and evidence” regarding the disaffection petition.

Atkins’ Request for Review contends that the “successor bar” serves no purpose other than to block the will of rank-and-file employees in favor of entrenching union bosses who ought to be accountable to the employees.

“The successor bar undermines the NLRA’s core purpose of employee free choice by disregarding employees’ actual desires and past experiences with their union representative. It also fails to recognize the Board’s highest calling: to conduct elections when there is a question of representation and to ensure employees are represented by a union of their choosing,” the Request for Review argues.

Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided numerous workers in exercising their right to dispense with union officials they oppose, including by advocating for election policy changes that the NLRB adopted in 2020. The changes prevent union officials from manipulating allegations (also called “blocking charges”) against an employer to stop workers from having a decertification election.

Teamsters union officials in particular have been the target of Foundation-assisted workers who are seeking to shed unions. In just the past year, Rush University maintenance workers in Chicago, Frito-Lay salesmen in Del Rio, TX, Allied Central Coast truckers in Santa Maria, CA, XPO Logistics workers in Cinnaminson, NJ, and Blish-Mize hardware distribution employees in Atchison, KS, all voted to decertify unpopular Teamsters local unions.

“The NLRB-invented ‘successor bar’ is just one example of how the Board neglects its mandate to protect the rights of individual workers, including those opposed to forced union affiliation, just to protect union boss power,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The ‘successor bar’ not only overrides the statutory right of workers to vote out unions they oppose, but does so at the very moment when workers are most likely to reevaluate their union status: the turnover of the old management that perhaps was the reason for unionization in the first place.”

“In this case the fundamental injustice of the ‘successor bar’ is compounded by the fact that one arm of the federal government – the Department of Justice – demanded the sale of this facility, which another federal agency – the NLRB – says should be grounds for blocking workers from ejecting a union they overwhelmingly oppose,” Mix continued. “Foundation attorneys will fight for Mr. Atkins and his coworkers until they can exercise their right to eject this unpopular union.”